7 Tips To Make The Maximum Use Of Your Pragmatic
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, 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. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined 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 of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, 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 first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their 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 resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 추천; click here to investigate, of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, 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. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined 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 of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, 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 first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their 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 resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 추천; click here to investigate, of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.