10 Pragmatic Tricks All Experts Recommend
Leonel
0
2
14:46
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 환수율 (northuse3.bravejournal.net) individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 카지노 traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 the responses 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 results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 환수율 (northuse3.bravejournal.net) individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 카지노 traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 the responses 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 results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
댓글 (0)
