The Little-Known Benefits Of Pragmatic
Georgianna Mitt…
0
5
09.21 15:19
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were important. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 - visit my home page, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for 프라그마틱 순위 플레이 (please click the following internet site) refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 추천 [bookmarks-hit.com] Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in 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 on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and 프라그마틱 데모 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 a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were important. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 - visit my home page, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for 프라그마틱 순위 플레이 (please click the following internet site) refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 추천 [bookmarks-hit.com] Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in 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 on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and 프라그마틱 데모 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 a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.