How Can A Weekly Pragmatic Project Can Change Your Life
페이지 정보
Elijah 24-12-27 03:21 view3 Comment0관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 체험 [Http://www.kaseisyoji.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=1112175] and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
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 using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered 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 second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 체험 [Http://www.kaseisyoji.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=1112175] and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
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 using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered 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 second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.