How Much Do Pragmatic Experts Earn?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 프라그마틱 체험 (Bysee3.com) 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend 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 over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 프라그마틱 체험 (Bysee3.com) 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend 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 over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글17 Signs You're Working With Glazing Repair Near Me 24.11.02
- 다음글10 Things That Your Family Taught You About Double Glazed Windows High Wycombe 24.11.02
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.