How Much Do Pragmatic Experts Earn?
작성일 24-10-23 09:18
페이지 정보
작성자… 조회 7회 댓글 0건본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with various experiments, 프라그마틱 무료체험 including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 정품확인 L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with various experiments, 프라그마틱 무료체험 including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 정품확인 L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.