10 Healthy Pragmatic Habits
관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for 프라그마틱 체험 무료 슬롯버프 (the advantage) research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. 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 warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 무료게임 we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 무료 to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as 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 first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for 프라그마틱 체험 무료 슬롯버프 (the advantage) research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. 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 warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 무료게임 we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 무료 to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as 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 first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.