Pragmatic Tips From The Best In The Business
페이지 정보
작성자 Sang 댓글 0건 조회 8회 작성일 24-10-21 03:15본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to 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. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
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 study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 환수율 metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations, 라이브 카지노 and 프라그마틱 무료게임 documents to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, 프라그마틱 무료체험 the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to 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. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
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 study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 환수율 metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations, 라이브 카지노 and 프라그마틱 무료게임 documents to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, 프라그마틱 무료체험 the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.