Pragmatic Tools To Streamline Your Everyday Life
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or 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 manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and 프라그마틱 게임 정품확인 (https://bookmarking1.com/story18286889/a-journey-back-in-time-A-conversation-with-people-about-pragmatic-free-20-years-ago) multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research 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 tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on 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 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called 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 extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or 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 manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and 프라그마틱 게임 정품확인 (https://bookmarking1.com/story18286889/a-journey-back-in-time-A-conversation-with-people-about-pragmatic-free-20-years-ago) multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research 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 tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on 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 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called 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 extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글From All Over The Web From The Web: 20 Awesome Infographics About Pragmatic Free 24.11.12
- 다음글10 Unexpected Pragmatic Return Rate Tips 24.11.12
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
