What Is Pragmatic And How To Use It?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or 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 in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and 프라그마틱 슬롯 should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing 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 showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, 프라그마틱 정품 which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that 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 had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, 프라그마틱 체험 they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test 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 method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
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 second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or 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 in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and 프라그마틱 슬롯 should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing 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 showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, 프라그마틱 정품 which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that 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 had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, 프라그마틱 체험 they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test 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 method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
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 second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
