Pragmatic Tips From The Top In The Business
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 데모 example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it 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 of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, 프라그마틱 정품인증 that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference 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 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
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 are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 데모 example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it 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 of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, 프라그마틱 정품인증 that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference 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 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
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 are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글Luton Double Glazing: What's New? No One Is Discussing 25.01.30
- 다음글The People Closest To Replacing A Window Handle Have Big Secrets To Share 25.01.30
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.