The Reason Pragmatic Is So Beneficial In COVID-19
페이지 정보
작성자 Lowell 댓글 0건 조회 4회 작성일 24-09-24 01:35본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs 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 either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced 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 a useful model for 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 프라그마틱 정품 사이트; Greatbookmarking.Com, official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to 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 method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for 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 identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words 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 attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs 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 either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced 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 a useful model for 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 프라그마틱 정품 사이트; Greatbookmarking.Com, official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to 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 method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for 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 identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words 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 attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.