Pragmatic Tools To Make Your Daily 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. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or 프라그마틱 assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were 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 analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "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 showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. 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 resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 메타 (Https://gogogobookmarks.Com/) instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives 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 beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or 프라그마틱 assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were 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 analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "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 showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. 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 resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 메타 (Https://gogogobookmarks.Com/) instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives 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 beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글Is Pragmatic Genuine The Greatest Thing There Ever Was? 24.11.02
- 다음글5 Pragmatic Lessons From The Professionals 24.11.02
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.