8 Tips To Up Your Pragmatic Game
2024.11.26 02:08
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 프라그마틱 무료게임 정품확인방법 (stamfordtutor.stamford.edu's website) Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 프라그마틱 순위 2 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 L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures 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 in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 프라그마틱 무료게임 정품확인방법 (stamfordtutor.stamford.edu's website) Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 프라그마틱 순위 2 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 L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures 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 in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.