The Little Known Benefits Of Pragmatic
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach 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 used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 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 also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider 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 produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 정품; 49.51.81.43, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a 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 to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance said 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.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach 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 used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 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 also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider 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 produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 정품; 49.51.81.43, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a 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 to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance said 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.