The Motive Behind Pragmatic In 2024 Is The Main Focus Of All People's …
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
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 alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. 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 analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. 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 a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 슬롯체험 (More hints) complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% 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. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
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 alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. 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 analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. 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 a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 슬롯체험 (More hints) complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% 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. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
