The Reasons Pragmatic Is Harder Than You Think
페이지 정보
Neil 24-12-26 14:01 view2 Comment0관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for 프라그마틱 순위 converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작버프 (super fast reply) on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 플레이 they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for 프라그마틱 순위 converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작버프 (super fast reply) on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 플레이 they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.