Pragmatic Tips From The Best In The…
등록일
24-10-21
조회
8
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 (bookmarklinx.Com) metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and 프라그마틱 플레이 refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: 프라그마틱 순위 their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in 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 transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on 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, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 (bookmarklinx.Com) metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and 프라그마틱 플레이 refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: 프라그마틱 순위 their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in 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 transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on 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, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
