It's The One Pragmatic Trick Every Person Should Know
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
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 of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various aspects, including politeness, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 슬롯 사이트 (https://maps.google.gg/url?Q=Https://www.metooo.com/u/66e563c19854826d166bcd46) turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 (how you can help) the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-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 employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of 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 usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in 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 asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 순위 (Jszst.com.cn) asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
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 of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various aspects, including politeness, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 슬롯 사이트 (https://maps.google.gg/url?Q=Https://www.metooo.com/u/66e563c19854826d166bcd46) turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 (how you can help) the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-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 employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of 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 usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in 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 asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 순위 (Jszst.com.cn) asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글Ultimate Guide to Sports Toto Site 24.09.19
- 다음글How To Tell If You're In The Right Position To Go After Wall Mounted Electric Fireplace 24.09.19
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.