마이홈자랑 | 10 Things That Everyone Doesn't Get Right About The Word "Pragmat…
페이지 정보
작성자 Lonnie Cope 작성일24-09-26 09:43관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 슬롯무료 (great site) L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students 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 consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 슬롯무료 (great site) L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students 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 consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
의견을 남겨주세요 !
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
