Why Is This Pragmatic So Beneficial? In COVID-19
페이지 정보
작성자Doreen 조회 3회 작성일 24-09-29 05:37본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 정품 (this contact form) we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 consequences they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 정품확인 (images.google.com.na) this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible 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 had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Moreover, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 정품 (this contact form) we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 consequences they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 정품확인 (images.google.com.na) this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible 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 had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Moreover, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.