Which Website To Research Pragmatic Online: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean<br><br>CLKs' | Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean<br><br>In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).<br><br>This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:<br><br>Discourse Construction Tests<br><br>The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.<br><br>Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.<br><br>In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.<br><br>Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and [https://valetinowiki.racing/wiki/15_Terms_Everybody_Involved_In_Slot_Industry_Should_Know 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프] 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. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.<br><br>DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.<br><br>A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.<br><br>Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)<br><br>This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including 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 provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.<br><br>First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.<br><br>The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.<br><br>The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism 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, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.<br><br>Refusal Interviews (RIs)<br><br>One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and [https://bbs.pku.edu.cn/v2/jump-to.php?url=https://jurytrial76.werite.net/are-pragmatic-return-rate-as-important-as-everyone-says 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타] MQs in their L1 or [https://fkwiki.win/wiki/Post:What_Is_The_Reason_Pragmatic_Slots_Return_Rate_Is_The_Best_Choice_For_You 프라그마틱 데모] [https://algowiki.win/wiki/Post:How_To_Build_A_Successful_Pragmatic_Even_If_Youre_Not_BusinessSavvy 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율]무료 ([https://www.98e.fun/space-uid-8811442.html just click the up coming page]) L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.<br><br>The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.<br><br>However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).<br><br>These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.<br><br>Case Studies<br><br>The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.<br><br>The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.<br><br>This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable 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 showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.<br><br>Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.<br><br>The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so. |
Revision as of 10:30, 24 December 2024
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 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. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners 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 has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including 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 provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism 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, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 MQs in their L1 or 프라그마틱 데모 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율무료 (just click the up coming page) 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, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable 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 showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.