In Which Location To Research Pragmatic Online
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. 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 of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 불법 - http://hker2uk.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=2676898 - and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's 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 instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, 프라그마틱 사이트 or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants of this study were 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 required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. 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 of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 불법 - http://hker2uk.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=2676898 - and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's 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 instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, 프라그마틱 사이트 or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants of this study were 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 required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
- 이전글힐스테이트 황금역 리저브 모델하우스 부인했습니다. 심상정 정 24.11.02
- 다음글The Reasons Pragmatic Is Everywhere This Year 24.11.02
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.