How You Can Use A Weekly Pragmatic Project Can Change Your Life
페이지 정보
Debbie Heyer 24-09-20 22:43 view5 Comment0관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 정품확인방법 - visit site, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 추천 - 45listing.com - L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with 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. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 정품확인방법 - visit site, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 추천 - 45listing.com - L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with 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. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.