How To Know If You're Ready To Go After Pragmatic
페이지 정보
작성자 Uta Stopford 작성일24-11-08 01:28 조회7회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 환수율 (http://www.lspandeng.com.cn/) the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred 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 of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experiments, 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 either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and 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 answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider 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. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 환수율 (http://www.lspandeng.com.cn/) the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred 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 of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experiments, 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 either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and 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 answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider 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. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
