5 Pragmatic Projects For Any Budget
페이지 정보
작성자 Jaimie 작성일 24-12-08 02:33 조회 3 댓글 0본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools for 프라그마틱 무료게임 analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely 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' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted 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. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and 슬롯 linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to the one 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 reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly 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 case study was based 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 test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding 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 reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools for 프라그마틱 무료게임 analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely 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' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted 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. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and 슬롯 linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to the one 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 reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly 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 case study was based 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 test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding 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 reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.