Why Pragmatic Is Harder Than You Imagine
Charley
0
3
12.28 13:19
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 사이트 - informatic.Wiki - turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 정품 확인법 - Https://bookmarking.Stream - and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals 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 review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 사이트 - informatic.Wiki - turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 정품 확인법 - Https://bookmarking.Stream - and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals 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 review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
댓글 (0)
