How Much Do Pragmatic Experts Earn?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 individual variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 사이트 such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators improve their methods of 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 strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
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 situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks 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 were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 individual variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 사이트 such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators improve their methods of 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 strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
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 situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks 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 were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.
- 이전글네이버 아이디 24.11.01
- 다음글7 Small Changes You Can Make That'll Make A Big Difference With Your Pragmatic Genuine 24.11.01
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.