How You Can Use A Weekly Pragmatic Project Can Change Your Life
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for 프라그마틱 불법 assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic 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. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor 프라그마틱 홈페이지 슬롯 팁 (lovewiki.faith) to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices 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 answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on 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 to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for 프라그마틱 불법 assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic 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. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor 프라그마틱 홈페이지 슬롯 팁 (lovewiki.faith) to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices 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 answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on 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 to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
- 이전글YV 24.10.09
- 다음글What Are The 5 Essential Benefits Of Daycares By Category 24.10.09