How Much Do Pragmatic Experts Make?
페이지 정보
작성자 Corine 댓글 0건 조회 4회 작성일 24-12-25 08:50본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and 프라그마틱 무료체험 ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 게임 can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy 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, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a 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.
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 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close 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 do so.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and 프라그마틱 무료체험 ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 게임 can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy 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, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a 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.
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 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close 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 do so.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.