8 Tips For Boosting Your Pragmatic Game
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 체험 (a cool way to improve) in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 무료 불법; https://mozillabd.science, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon 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 particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise 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.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were 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 lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 체험 (a cool way to improve) in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 무료 불법; https://mozillabd.science, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon 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 particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise 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.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were 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 lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
- 이전글20 Reasons To Believe Auto Locksmith Near Me Will Not Be Forgotten 25.01.11
- 다음글15 Things You've Never Known About Automotive Locksmith Near Me 25.01.11
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.