How To Research Pragmatic Online
페이지 정보
작성자 Chadwick 댓글 0건 조회 8회 작성일 24-10-03 06:29본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and 프라그마틱 (Peatix.Com) ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue 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 a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 (mouse click on Metooo) teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with 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)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to 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 asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and 프라그마틱 (Peatix.Com) ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue 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 a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 (mouse click on Metooo) teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with 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)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to 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 asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
