5 Pragmatic Lessons From Professionals
페이지 정보
작성자 Angus McDavid 작성일24-11-11 02:00 조회2회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
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 to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed 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 life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior 프라그마틱 홈페이지 in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 슬롯 환수율 (bookmarkcolumn.Com) Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and 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. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
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 to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed 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 life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior 프라그마틱 홈페이지 in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 슬롯 환수율 (bookmarkcolumn.Com) Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and 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. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
