8 Tips For Boosting Your Pragmatic Game
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 무료 can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different 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 many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged 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 making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and 프라그마틱 플레이 DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas 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 on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either 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, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed 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 various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 teaching and testing the korea-based 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
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 aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and 프라그마틱 pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 무료 can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different 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 many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged 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 making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and 프라그마틱 플레이 DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas 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 on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either 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, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed 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 various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 teaching and testing the korea-based 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
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 aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and 프라그마틱 pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글15 Terms That Everyone Within The Folding Motorised Wheelchair Industry Should Know 25.01.12
- 다음글5 Killer Quora Answers To Foldable Flat Treadmill 25.01.12
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.