How Much Can Pragmatic Experts Make?
페이지 정보
작성자 Lupe 작성일25-02-15 16:15 조회24회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated 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 at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach 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 a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 무료 (new post from buhoffice.ru) Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case 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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated 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 at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach 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 a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 무료 (new post from buhoffice.ru) Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case 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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.