20 Pragmatic Websites Taking The Internet By Storm
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set 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, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 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 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 participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as 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 their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, 프라그마틱 정품 이미지, site, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and 프라그마틱 환수율 (source website) beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both 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 helpful 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 that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, 프라그마틱 불법 (sovren.Media) claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set 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, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 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 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 participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as 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 their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, 프라그마틱 정품 이미지, site, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and 프라그마틱 환수율 (source website) beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both 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 helpful 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 that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, 프라그마틱 불법 (sovren.Media) claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.