5 Pragmatic Projects For Every Budget
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, 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 investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, 프라그마틱 정품인증 turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, 프라그마틱 플레이 such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 환수율 (visit the website) which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending 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 favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were 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 contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. For example, they described 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 their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain 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 help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted 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 study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in 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 of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, 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 investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, 프라그마틱 정품인증 turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, 프라그마틱 플레이 such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 환수율 (visit the website) which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending 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 favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were 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 contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. For example, they described 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 their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain 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 help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted 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 study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in 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 of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글What's The Current Job Market For Window Sealant Repair Near Me Professionals Like? 24.11.24
- 다음글20 Things You Should Be Educated About Replacement Sealed Units Cost 24.11.24
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
