5 Pragmatic Projects That Work For Any Budget
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor 프라그마틱 순위 무료게임; maps.google.com.tr, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 relationships as a major factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 환수율 but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect 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 analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 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 evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 정품확인 teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor 프라그마틱 순위 무료게임; maps.google.com.tr, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 relationships as a major factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 환수율 but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect 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 analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 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 evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 정품확인 teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
페이지 정보
Jimmie 작성일24-11-04 00:29 조회6회 댓글0건관련링크
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.