8 Tips To Up Your Pragmatic Game
관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or 프라그마틱 무료스핀 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 use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (https://dirstop.com) in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere 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 resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based 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 the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and 프라그마틱 게임 their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or 프라그마틱 무료스핀 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 use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (https://dirstop.com) in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere 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 resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based 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 the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and 프라그마틱 게임 their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.