Why Everyone Is Talking About Pragmatic Right Now
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major 프라그마틱 불법 (your input here) issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 플레이 DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. 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 showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, 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 first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major 프라그마틱 불법 (your input here) issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 플레이 DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. 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 showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, 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 first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글What Undestand When Painting Parking Lot Lines 24.09.22
- 다음글5 Oil Filled Radiator Small Instructions From The Pros 24.09.22
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.