Pragmatic Tips From The Top In The Industry
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the 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 numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or 프라그마틱 추천 for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools for 프라그마틱 추천 analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and 프라그마틱 추천 then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 프라그마틱 정품확인 L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools 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 MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 정품확인 (https://git.openprivacy.ca/enginebill74) discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. 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 mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced 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 a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
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 should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the 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 numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or 프라그마틱 추천 for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools for 프라그마틱 추천 analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and 프라그마틱 추천 then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 프라그마틱 정품확인 L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools 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 MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 정품확인 (https://git.openprivacy.ca/enginebill74) discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. 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 mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced 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 a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
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 should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글WhatsApp Gold مهكر 25.02.11
- 다음글경기도군포시 낙태가능한산부인과~#임신중절수술해주는병원 25.02.11
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.