How Much Can Pragmatic Experts Earn?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for 프라그마틱 이미지 assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. 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 used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed 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 used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. 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 also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 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 consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic 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 Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for 프라그마틱 이미지 assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. 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 used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed 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 used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. 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 also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 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 consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic 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 Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
- 이전글Советы по выбору идеальное веб-казино 24.11.06
- 다음글"Холостяк (Украина) 13 сезон 5 выпуск 29.11.2024" шоу 2024 смотреть онлайн все серии. 24.11.06
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
