10 Healthy Habits For Pragmatic
관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and 프라그마틱 정품확인 슬롯버프 (Suggested Reading) individual variations. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 사이트 based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete 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 required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and 프라그마틱 추천 which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and 프라그마틱 정품확인 슬롯버프 (Suggested Reading) individual variations. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 사이트 based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete 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 required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and 프라그마틱 추천 which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.