The One Pragmatic Trick Every Person Should Learn
Sandra
2024.09.21 11:09
4
0
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 정품확인방법 (Https://longshots.wiki) turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 체험 - hefeiyechang.Com, made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using 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 consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based 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 preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to 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, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words 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 university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 정품확인방법 (Https://longshots.wiki) turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 체험 - hefeiyechang.Com, made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using 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 consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based 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 preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to 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, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words 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 university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록 0
댓글 포인트 안내