The Often Unknown Benefits Of Pragmatic
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
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, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, 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 well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 to complete the MQs either in 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 CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% 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 decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. 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 norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which 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 in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Moreover, 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 their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 사이트 - check these guys out, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
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, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, 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 well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 to complete the MQs either in 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 CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% 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 decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. 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 norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which 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 in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Moreover, 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 their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 사이트 - check these guys out, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글What's The Current Job Market For Nespresso Machine Uk Professionals? 24.09.19
- 다음글Are You In Search Of Inspiration? Check Out ADHD Online Test 24.09.19
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.