How Much Can Pragmatic Experts Make?
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. For 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise, and 프라그마틱 정품확인 they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or 프라그마틱 정품확인 to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 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, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 환수율 the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or 프라그마틱 무료스핀 정품확인 (www.hebian.cn) third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. For 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise, and 프라그마틱 정품확인 they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or 프라그마틱 정품확인 to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 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, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 환수율 the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or 프라그마틱 무료스핀 정품확인 (www.hebian.cn) third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
- 이전글The 10 Most Scariest Things About Upvc Door Insert Panel 25.02.11
- 다음글The Most Common Window Handles Debate Isn't As Black And White As You May Think 25.02.11
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.