What Experts From The Field Of Pragmatic Want You To Know?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯 사이트 (Read Homepage) conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 프라그마틱 체험 무료슬롯 (planforexams.com) their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Additionally this will allow 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 investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯 사이트 (Read Homepage) conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 프라그마틱 체험 무료슬롯 (planforexams.com) their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Additionally this will allow 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 investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.