Are You Able To Research Pragmatic Online
페이지 정보
작성자 Darci Brush 작성일24-09-26 16:50 조회7회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 슬롯 하는법 [click the following page] a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led 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 varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 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. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 슬롯 하는법 [click the following page] a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led 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 varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 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. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
