5 Pragmatic Lessons From Professionals
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored 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-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, 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 asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and 프라그마틱 환수율 the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 플레이, Http://daojianchina.com/Home.php?mod=space&uid=4689313, place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built 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 test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 홈페이지 (go directly to xojh.cn) third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored 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-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, 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 asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and 프라그마틱 환수율 the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 플레이, Http://daojianchina.com/Home.php?mod=space&uid=4689313, place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built 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 test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 홈페이지 (go directly to xojh.cn) third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글From All Over The Web Twenty Amazing Infographics About Mesothelioma Lawsuit 24.09.27
- 다음글Ten Direct Trade Arabica Coffee Beanss That Really Make Your Life Better 24.09.27
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.