How Much Do Pragmatic Experts Earn?
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 social ties they could draw on were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 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 ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 게임 슬롯 조작 [www.google.Com.pk] DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. 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 favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed 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 behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of 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 perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 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 ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 게임 슬롯 조작 [www.google.Com.pk] DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. 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 favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed 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 behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of 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 perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
- 이전글Five Reasons To Join An Online What Are ADHD Symptoms In Adults Business And 5 Reasons To Not 25.02.05
- 다음글What's The Current Job Market For Best Robot Vacuum Cleaner And Mop Professionals? 25.02.05
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.