How Much Can Pragmatic Experts Make?
페이지 정보
작성자 Linnea Castro 댓글 0건 조회 2회 작성일 24-09-21 13:12본문
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 the RIs from TS and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate 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: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required 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 프라그마틱 플레이 Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect 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 this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for 프라그마틱 정품확인 (Our Web Site) official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, 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 extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
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 the RIs from TS and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate 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: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required 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 프라그마틱 플레이 Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect 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 this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for 프라그마틱 정품확인 (Our Web Site) official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, 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 extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
