Pragmatic Tips From The Most Effective In The Industry
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding 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 upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and 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. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 프라그마틱 무료게임 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and 프라그마틱 불법 무료체험 슬롯버프 (mouse click the up coming web site) multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They outlined, for instance 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 concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based 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. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon 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 precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Moreover, 프라그마틱 무료게임 the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding 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 upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and 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. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 프라그마틱 무료게임 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and 프라그마틱 불법 무료체험 슬롯버프 (mouse click the up coming web site) multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They outlined, for instance 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 concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based 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. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon 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 precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Moreover, 프라그마틱 무료게임 the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글9 Lessons Your Parents Teach You About Situs Alternatif Gotogel 25.02.18
- 다음글Why Glass Hinge Is The Right Choice For You? 25.02.18
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.