The Myths And Facts Behind Pragmatic
작성일 24-10-30 11:15
페이지 정보
작성자Maple 조회 3회 댓글 0건본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor 프라그마틱 (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for 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. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and 프라그마틱 순위 a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as 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 to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed 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 experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several 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 플레이 L2 levels. 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% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred 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 in specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for 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 like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed 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 departure from the correct 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.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind 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 connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor 프라그마틱 (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for 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. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and 프라그마틱 순위 a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as 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 to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed 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 experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several 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 플레이 L2 levels. 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% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred 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 in specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for 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 like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed 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 departure from the correct 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.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind 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 connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
