10 Pragmatic Tricks Experts Recommend
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, 프라그마틱 불법 슈가러쉬 (More inspiring ideas) such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
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 preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 불법 the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on 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 even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical 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 mentioned external factors like 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 concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as 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 useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, 무료 프라그마틱 (Read This method) the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
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 achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two situations, 프라그마틱 데모 each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, 프라그마틱 불법 슈가러쉬 (More inspiring ideas) such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
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 preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 불법 the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on 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 even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical 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 mentioned external factors like 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 concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as 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 useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, 무료 프라그마틱 (Read This method) the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
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 achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two situations, 프라그마틱 데모 each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
- 이전글Double Mattresses Sale Tools To Ease Your Daily Life Double Mattresses Sale Trick That Every Person Must Learn 24.09.19
- 다음글10 Misconceptions That Your Boss May Have Concerning Table Top Fridges For Sale 24.09.19
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.