5 Pragmatic Projects For Any Budget
Ervin
2024.10.17 06:24
3
0
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and 프라그마틱 정품확인 may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 환수율 their current life experiences and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯; Bbs.Zhizhuyx.Com, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware 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 were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. 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 pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for 프라그마틱 무료 teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. 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, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and 프라그마틱 정품확인 may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 환수율 their current life experiences and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯; Bbs.Zhizhuyx.Com, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware 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 were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. 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 pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for 프라그마틱 무료 teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. 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, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
댓글목록 0