How Much Do Pragmatic Experts Make?
페이지 정보
본문
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 relationship advantages they had access to were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before 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 to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, 무료 프라그마틱 metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for 프라그마틱 사이트 converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with several 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 in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before 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 to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, 무료 프라그마틱 metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for 프라그마틱 사이트 converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with several 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 in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
- 이전글세종대 뮤지엄갤러리 1관, 박대영 ‘보리 화가’ 초대전 24.11.23
- 다음글무료웹툰 ★퍼플툰★ 무료 웹툰사이트 리스트 2025년 TOP5 24.11.23
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
