How Much Can Pragmatic Experts Make?
페이지 정보
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 이미지 turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety 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 like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 프라그마틱 사이트 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for 프라그마틱 불법 official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 이미지 turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety 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 like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 프라그마틱 사이트 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for 프라그마틱 불법 official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.
