How Pragmatic Became The Top Trend On Social Media
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for 프라그마틱 cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 무료게임 the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 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 reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Moreover, the participants of 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 of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for 프라그마틱 cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 무료게임 the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 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 reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Moreover, the participants of 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 of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글This Is The History Of Pragmatic Demo In 10 Milestones 24.11.02
- 다음글15 Amazing Facts About Pragmatic Kr 24.11.02
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.