제목
8 Tips To Increase Your Pragmatic Game
페이지 정보
작성자
Darin
조회수
13회
작성일
24-09-19 09:26
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 슬롯버프 (similar web page) non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research used an 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 found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 (Olderworkers.com.au) second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 슬롯버프 (similar web page) non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research used an 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 found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 (Olderworkers.com.au) second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.