10 Pragmatic Tips All Experts Recommend
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like design and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 사이트 (Www.google.pn) not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like design and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 사이트 (Www.google.pn) not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글5 Reasons Audi Convenience Key Is A Good Thing 24.11.10
- 다음글Why Nobody Cares About Mercedes Replacement Key Cost Uk 24.11.10
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.