10 Healthy Pragmatic Habits
페이지 정보
작성자 Retha 작성일24-10-14 20:22 조회6회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, 프라그마틱 무료게임 for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be accurate and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 슬롯 - Leftbookmarks.com - their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used 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 revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, 무료 프라그마틱 how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed 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 believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, 프라그마틱 무료게임 for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be accurate and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 슬롯 - Leftbookmarks.com - their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used 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 revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, 무료 프라그마틱 how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed 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 believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.