How You Can Use A Weekly Pragmatic Project Can Change Your Life
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for 프라그마틱 정품인증 analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and 프라그마틱 정품확인 based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
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 was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. 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 their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and 프라그마틱 정품확인 무료 (http://bbs.Lingshangkaihua.com/) discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform, 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 highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in 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 co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for 프라그마틱 정품인증 analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and 프라그마틱 정품확인 based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
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 was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. 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 their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and 프라그마틱 정품확인 무료 (http://bbs.Lingshangkaihua.com/) discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform, 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 highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in 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 co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글Why Assessment Of Adult Adhd Isn't A Topic That People Are Interested In Assessment Of Adult Adhd 24.12.18
- 다음글You'll Never Guess This Misted Double Glazing Repairs Near Me's Benefits 24.12.18
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.