How Much Do Pragmatic Experts Make?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 무료게임 a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 공식홈페이지 (https://maps.google.ml/url?q=https://brandyfaucet5.werite.net/the-most-successful-Pragmatic-gurus-can-do-three-things) the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on 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 showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or 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 define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination 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 achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 무료게임 a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 공식홈페이지 (https://maps.google.ml/url?q=https://brandyfaucet5.werite.net/the-most-successful-Pragmatic-gurus-can-do-three-things) the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on 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 showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or 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 define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination 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 achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글10 Places To Find Home Espresso Machine 25.02.08
- 다음글Guide To Fridge Brands UK: The Intermediate Guide In Fridge Brands UK 25.02.08
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.