싱나벼룩시장 | 5 Pragmatic Projects That Work For Any Budget
페이지 정보
작성자 Latasha 작성일24-09-26 21:41관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, 프라그마틱 (pragmatickr-Com75319.bloggin-Ads.Com) the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 정품확인방법 (socialmphl.com) 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on 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 create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for 프라그마틱 무료스핀 이미지 (Iowa Bookmarks writes) examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency 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 reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, 프라그마틱 (pragmatickr-Com75319.bloggin-Ads.Com) the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 정품확인방법 (socialmphl.com) 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on 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 create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for 프라그마틱 무료스핀 이미지 (Iowa Bookmarks writes) examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency 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 reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
의견을 남겨주세요 !
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
