How To Research Pragmatic Online
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing 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 discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic 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 recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 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 CLKs, on average, 프라그마틱 무료게임 did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's 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 research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 순위 (Peatix.Com) understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing 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 discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic 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 recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 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 CLKs, on average, 프라그마틱 무료게임 did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's 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 research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 순위 (Peatix.Com) understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.