환경안전사고 | 10 Unexpected Pragmatic Tips
- 신고자: Lachlan (UL / CK)
- 신고일자: 24-11-20 19:37
- Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various 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 study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made 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 less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and 프라그마틱 체험 (Hyperbookmarks.Com) to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider 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 even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. They described, for 프라그마틱 example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, 프라그마틱 게임 정품확인 (Bookmarkinglive.Com) is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted 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 experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of 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 quality of response.
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 second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
