20 Pragmatic Websites Taking The Internet By Storm
2024.11.25 22:04
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for 프라그마틱 슬롯 - Learn Alot more Here - assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using 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 responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the 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 advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose 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 use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for 프라그마틱 슬롯 - Learn Alot more Here - assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using 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 responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the 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 advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose 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 use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.