Your Family Will Be Grateful For Having This Pragmatic
페이지 정보
작성자 Lauri 작성일24-10-12 13:45 조회16회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument 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 can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 불법 카지노 (Bookmarkingfeed.com) such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and 프라그마틱 플레이 DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about 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 were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise 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 case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument 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 can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 불법 카지노 (Bookmarkingfeed.com) such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and 프라그마틱 플레이 DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about 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 were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise 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 case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
