5 Pragmatic Lessons From Professionals
페이지 정보
작성자 Christena 작성일 24-11-22 17:19 조회 2 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, 라이브 카지노 it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can help 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 among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed 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 completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or 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 native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of 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 year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, 라이브 카지노 it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can help 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 among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed 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 completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or 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 native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of 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 year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.