10 Strategies To Build Your Pragmatic Empire
페이지 정보
Lorenza Lundgre… 24-11-01 14:45 view22 Comment0관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example, 프라그마틱 순위 cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. 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 analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or 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 follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 - https://kingranks.Com/author/eggnogcross40-1028866/, level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example, 프라그마틱 순위 cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. 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 analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or 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 follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 - https://kingranks.Com/author/eggnogcross40-1028866/, level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.