자유게시판
The Reason Pragmatic Is So Beneficial During COVID-19
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
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 manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, 프라그마틱 플레이 including politeness, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 순위; pragmatickr65319.Answerblogs.com, turn-taking, and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were 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 video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and 프라그마틱 relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, 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 were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
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 manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, 프라그마틱 플레이 including politeness, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 순위; pragmatickr65319.Answerblogs.com, turn-taking, and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were 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 video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and 프라그마틱 relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, 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 were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글비아마켓 24.11.01
- 다음글10 Top Books On Pragmatic Demo 24.11.01
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.