10 Pragmatic Tricks All Experts Recommend
작성자 정보
- Alphonse Given 작성
- 작성일
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, 프라그마틱 무료 정품 사이트 (bookmark4You.win) but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for 프라그마틱 환수율 카지노 (maps.google.Cat) cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 데모 result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of 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 L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to 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 investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], 프라그마틱 환수율 and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, 프라그마틱 무료 정품 사이트 (bookmark4You.win) but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for 프라그마틱 환수율 카지노 (maps.google.Cat) cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 데모 result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of 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 L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to 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 investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], 프라그마틱 환수율 and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
관련자료
-
이전
-
다음
댓글 0
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.