How Pragmatic Became The Top Trend On Social Media
페이지 정보
작성자 Orlando 작성일 24-12-21 04:31 조회 2 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for 프라그마틱 정품확인 experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. 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 categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important 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 employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and 프라그마틱 환수율 RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly 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 an inclination to add 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 achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for 프라그마틱 정품확인 experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. 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 categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important 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 employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and 프라그마틱 환수율 RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly 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 an inclination to add 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 achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.