20 Pragmatic Websites That Are Taking The Internet By Storm
Columbus
0
6
09.26 08:35
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 정품인증 (Atavi link for more info) DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared 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 requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 정품인증 (just click the up coming post) the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of 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 first 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 situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is 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 extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 정품인증 (Atavi link for more info) DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared 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 requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 정품인증 (just click the up coming post) the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of 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 first 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 situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is 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 extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.