Pragmatic Tips From The Top In The Business
페이지 정보
Ferdinand Zambr… 25-01-02 20:51 view2 Comment0관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of 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 transcribing, and 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 compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and 프라그마틱 환수율 정품 [images.google.Com.pa] in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
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 topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and 프라그마틱 플레이 슬롯무료 (dokuwiki.stream) put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding 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 reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of 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 transcribing, and 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 compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and 프라그마틱 환수율 정품 [images.google.Com.pa] in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
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 topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and 프라그마틱 플레이 슬롯무료 (dokuwiki.stream) put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding 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 reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.