5 Pragmatic Projects For Every Budget
관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect 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 study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. 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 a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 이미지 video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for 슬롯 collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more 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 revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 슈가러쉬 (https://Www.google.com.Gi) including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted 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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect 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 study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. 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 a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 이미지 video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for 슬롯 collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more 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 revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 슈가러쉬 (https://Www.google.com.Gi) including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted 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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.