Pragmatic Tools To Enhance Your Daily Life
페이지 정보
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, 프라그마틱 체험 is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and 프라그마틱 불법 MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences 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 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources, 프라그마틱 플레이 such as interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and 프라그마틱 이미지 (www.metooo.io) would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, 프라그마틱 체험 is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and 프라그마틱 불법 MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences 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 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources, 프라그마틱 플레이 such as interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and 프라그마틱 이미지 (www.metooo.io) would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
