10 Healthy Habits For A Healthy Pragmatic
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 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 revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform 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 and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as 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 relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 조작 (my website) observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 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 revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform 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 and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as 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 relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 조작 (my website) observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
관리자 로그인
