Pragmatic Strategies From The Top In The Industry
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various issues, 프라그마틱 순위 including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to 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 a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a 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 within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings 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 reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for 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 research strategy that utilizes deep, 프라그마틱 환수율 participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 (ezproxy.cityu.edu.hk) HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach 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' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various issues, 프라그마틱 순위 including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to 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 a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a 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 within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings 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 reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for 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 research strategy that utilizes deep, 프라그마틱 환수율 participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 (ezproxy.cityu.edu.hk) HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach 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.
- 이전글Why You Should Consider Video Chat in Today's World 24.11.23
- 다음글The 10 Most Scariest Things About Coffee Grinders Sale 24.11.23
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
