20 Pragmatic Websites That Are Taking The Internet By Storm
Hudson Feliciano
2025-02-05 11:41
11
0
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 (Ipme.Ru) as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and 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 is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 확인법 (79.Viromin.Com) 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 either in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly 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 useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
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 provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 (Ipme.Ru) as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and 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 is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 확인법 (79.Viromin.Com) 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 either in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly 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 useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
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 provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록0