How To Research Pragmatic Online
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 departing from both L1 as well as 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 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 basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs 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 asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly 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 to external factors, such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. 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 norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals 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 useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 departing from both L1 as well as 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 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 basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs 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 asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly 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 to external factors, such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. 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 norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals 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 useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
- 이전글One Wall Mount Electric Fireplaces Success Story You'll Never Be Able To 24.11.01
- 다음글20 Irrefutable Myths About Case Opening Battle: Busted 24.11.01
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
