Why The Pragmatic Is Beneficial In COVID-19
페이지 정보
작성자 Dorothea 댓글 0건 조회 6회 작성일 24-12-27 16:50본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, 프라그마틱 추천 RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. 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 if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, 프라그마틱 환수율 as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up 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 measure with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, 프라그마틱 추천 RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. 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 if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, 프라그마틱 환수율 as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up 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 measure with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.