5 Pragmatic Projects That Work For Any Budget
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various issues that include politeness, 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 given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, 프라그마틱 정품 슬롯 무료 (mouse click the next web page) personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring 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 responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on 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 about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various issues that include politeness, 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 given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, 프라그마틱 정품 슬롯 무료 (mouse click the next web page) personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring 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 responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on 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 about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글Why Adding A Gas Safety Certificate Homeowner To Your Life Can Make All The Difference 24.12.18
- 다음글15 Of The Best Twitter Accounts To Discover Mystery Box 24.12.18
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.