How Much Can Pragmatic Experts Make?
페이지 정보
작성자 Emile 댓글 0건 조회 8회 작성일 24-10-19 06:35본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 the social ties they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually 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 aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed 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 of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted 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 the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 the social ties they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually 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 aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed 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 of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted 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 the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.