How Much Do Pragmatic Experts Earn?
페이지 정보
작성자 Donna 댓글 0건 조회 3회 작성일 24-11-09 22:55본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, 프라그마틱 데모 but it also has a few drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored 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 in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, 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 either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 무료스핀 프라그마틱 체험 (agerskov-Rohde-2.Blogbright.net) L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
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 could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, 슬롯 observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in 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 university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, 프라그마틱 데모 but it also has a few drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored 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 in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, 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 either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 무료스핀 프라그마틱 체험 (agerskov-Rohde-2.Blogbright.net) L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
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 could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, 슬롯 observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in 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 university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.