Is There A Place To Research Pragmatic Online
Evangeline
2025-01-27 04:16
17
0
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be 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 manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 플레이 Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "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 revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every 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 transcribing, and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯무료 (just click the next website page) then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, 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. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and 프라그마틱 무료 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 in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly 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 add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be 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 manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 플레이 Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "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 revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every 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 transcribing, and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯무료 (just click the next website page) then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, 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. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and 프라그마틱 무료 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 in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly 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 add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
댓글목록0