20 Pragmatic Websites That Are Taking The Internet By Storm
Jeramy
0
11
09.21 15:30
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it 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. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and 프라그마틱 추천 - he said - content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study, 프라그마틱 정품 무료체험 메타 (https://humanlove.stream/wiki/What_Is_Pragmatic_And_How_To_Use_What_Is_Pragmatic_And_How_To_Use) DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
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 so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 환수율 [Https://Lovewiki.Faith/] were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it 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. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and 프라그마틱 추천 - he said - content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study, 프라그마틱 정품 무료체험 메타 (https://humanlove.stream/wiki/What_Is_Pragmatic_And_How_To_Use_What_Is_Pragmatic_And_How_To_Use) DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
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 so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 환수율 [Https://Lovewiki.Faith/] were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.