What Experts From The Field Of Pragmatic Want You To Learn
Marita
2024.10.11 21:22
2
0
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 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 think about their evaluations and refusal responses 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 primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 정품인증 which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at 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 local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for 프라그마틱 슬롯 future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 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 think about their evaluations and refusal responses 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 primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 정품인증 which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at 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 local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for 프라그마틱 슬롯 future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록 0