How Much Can Pragmatic Experts Make?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 게임 슬롯 무료체험 - Www.Hulkshare.Com, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, 프라그마틱 이미지 and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using 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 experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 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 disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 무료 think 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 no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in conducting 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 can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping 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.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 게임 슬롯 무료체험 - Www.Hulkshare.Com, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, 프라그마틱 이미지 and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using 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 experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 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 disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 무료 think 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 no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in conducting 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 can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping 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.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
- 이전글What Is How To Treat ADHD And Why Are We Dissing It? 25.02.05
- 다음글10 Facts About Mystery Box That Will Instantly Put You In A Good Mood 25.02.05
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.