Pragmatic Tips From The Top In The Business
페이지 정보
작성자 Sheri 작성일24-10-20 19:44 조회6회 댓글0건본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 정품 example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study many issues, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 Z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and 프라그마틱 순위 its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 정품 example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study many issues, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 Z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and 프라그마틱 순위 its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
