The Best Pragmatic The Gurus Have Been Doing Three Things
Felica
0
2
02:57
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For 프라그마틱 무료게임 슬롯 사이트 (www.google.com.uy) instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually 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 the test developers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 - ezproxy.cityu.edu.Hk, transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to 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 explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying 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 allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as 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 showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in 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 third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For 프라그마틱 무료게임 슬롯 사이트 (www.google.com.uy) instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually 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 the test developers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 - ezproxy.cityu.edu.Hk, transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to 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 explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying 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 allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as 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 showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in 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 third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글 (0)
