테스트2 Ten Ways To Build Your Pragmatic Empire
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. 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 can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded 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 should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 (just click the up coming internet page) RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. 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 adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They described, 프라그마틱 for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is 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 options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed 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, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. 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 can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded 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 should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 (just click the up coming internet page) RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. 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 adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They described, 프라그마틱 for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is 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 options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed 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, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글An Intermediate Guide The Steps To Case Opening Battles 25.01.14
- 다음글Understanding Night Bar Back Jobs: The Unsung Heroes of the Nightlife Industry 25.01.14
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.