How Much Can Pragmatic Experts Earn?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests 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 tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. 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. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천, Forum.Partyinmydorm.Com, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, 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 extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests 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 tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. 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. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천, Forum.Partyinmydorm.Com, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, 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 extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글Learn About Link Collection While You Work From The Comfort Of Your Home 25.02.06
- 다음글지속 가능한 미래: 환경 보호와 혁신의 길 25.02.06
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.