8 Tips To Increase Your Pragmatic Game
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 무료 - click through the next website page, to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 무료 - click through the next website page, to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.