How Do You Know If You're In The Right Place For Pragmatic
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 (Highly recommended Online site) but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used 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. Its ability in two or 프라그마틱 홈페이지 more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of 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 examined 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 with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics 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, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 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 also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 불법 (my latest blog post) such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was 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. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 (Highly recommended Online site) but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used 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. Its ability in two or 프라그마틱 홈페이지 more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of 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 examined 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 with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics 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, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 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 also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 불법 (my latest blog post) such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was 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. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
- 이전글10 Healthy Pragmatic Habits 24.09.25
- 다음글You'll Never Be Able To Figure Out This Togel4d Login's Secrets 24.09.25
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.