Your Family Will Be Thankful For Getting This Pragmatic
Paulina
2025-02-05 11:26
5
0
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for 프라그마틱 순위 L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored 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, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. 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 and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For 프라그마틱 환수율 순위, kosmetika-proff.ru, instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 체험 the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and 프라그마틱 정품 슬롯 팁 (https://art-style.pro/) which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called 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 vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case 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 of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for 프라그마틱 순위 L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored 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, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. 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 and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For 프라그마틱 환수율 순위, kosmetika-proff.ru, instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 체험 the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and 프라그마틱 정품 슬롯 팁 (https://art-style.pro/) which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called 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 vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case 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 of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록0