제목
How To Know If You're In The Right Position For Pragmatic
페이지 정보
작성자
Georgianna Ruff…
조회수
13회
작성일
24-10-04 23:08
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change 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 a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze 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 speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding 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 of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required 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 could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed 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 favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 데모 and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
However, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 (recent post by Mysterybookmarks) the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change 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 a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze 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 speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding 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 of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required 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 could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed 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 favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 데모 and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
However, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 (recent post by Mysterybookmarks) the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.