제목
Why Pragmatic Is Your Next Big Obsession?
페이지 정보
작성자
Jackie Neale
조회수
17회
작성일
24-09-26 04:47
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 (i loved this) is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 (navigate to this site) whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging 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 in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. 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 may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies 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 example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 (i loved this) is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 (navigate to this site) whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging 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 in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. 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 may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies 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 example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.