What Experts From The Field Of Pragmatic Want You To Learn
댓글 :
0
조회 :
5
01.31 14:37
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, 무료 프라그마틱 데모 (Maps.Google.com.lb) and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and 프라그마틱 플레이 then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], 프라그마틱 환수율 as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, 무료 프라그마틱 데모 (Maps.Google.com.lb) and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and 프라그마틱 플레이 then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], 프라그마틱 환수율 as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.
