제목
The History Of Pragmatic In 10 Milestones
페이지 정보
작성자
Rita
조회수
17회
작성일
24-09-25 10:16
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 홈페이지; mouse click the up coming post, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational 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 DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They also discussed, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 for instance 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 also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. 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 aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation 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, 프라그마틱 무료 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (Highly recommended Reading) each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 홈페이지; mouse click the up coming post, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational 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 DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They also discussed, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 for instance 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 also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. 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 aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation 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, 프라그마틱 무료 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (Highly recommended Reading) each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.