10 Ways To Create Your Pragmatic Empire
Phillipp
2025-01-27 04:09
37
0
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 무료게임 슬롯 프라그마틱 무료체험 (delphi.Larsbo.org) and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced 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 tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
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 at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 무료게임 슬롯 프라그마틱 무료체험 (delphi.Larsbo.org) and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced 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 tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
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 at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록0