Ten Things Everybody Is Uncertain About The Word "Pragmatic"
페이지 정보
작성일 2024-09-20
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for 프라그마틱 정품인증 사이트 (conversational tone) the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation 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 provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed 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 experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could 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 unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators 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 an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This 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 experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 무료스핀 (pop over to this web-site) and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for 프라그마틱 정품인증 사이트 (conversational tone) the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation 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 provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed 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 experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could 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 unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators 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 an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This 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 experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 무료스핀 (pop over to this web-site) and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
