What Pragmatic Will Be Your Next Big Obsession?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 (Socialbookmarkgs.Com) were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. 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 DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 이미지 z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted 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 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 conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea 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 method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
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 essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. 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 had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 (Socialbookmarkgs.Com) were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. 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 DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 이미지 z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted 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 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 conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea 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 method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
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 essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. 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 had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.