Why Everyone Is Talking About Pragmatic Right Now
페이지 정보
Kacey 24-12-26 19:43 view9 Comment0관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess 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 hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, 프라그마틱 정품 환수율 (Algowiki.win) multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. 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. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as 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 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure 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 responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 무료체험 슬롯버프 (why not try these out) each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess 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 hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, 프라그마틱 정품 환수율 (Algowiki.win) multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. 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. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as 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 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure 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 responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 무료체험 슬롯버프 (why not try these out) each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.