This Is The History Of Pragmatic In 10 Milestones
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for 프라그마틱 무료 - description here, discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and 프라그마틱 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 [from the throbsocial.com blog] RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly 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 can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for 프라그마틱 무료 - description here, discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and 프라그마틱 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 [from the throbsocial.com blog] RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly 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 can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
- 이전글асцендент водолей - асцендент в скорпионе 24.09.25
- 다음글The Ultimate Guide To PokerTube 24.09.25
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.