Why Is Pragmatic So Effective During COVID-19
페이지 정보
Willie 24-10-20 03:36 view6 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 relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, 프라그마틱 including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to 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 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 variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for 프라그마틱 플레이 official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks 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 select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, 프라그마틱 including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to 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 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 variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for 프라그마틱 플레이 official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks 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 select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.