How Much Do Pragmatic Experts Earn?
Doris
2024.09.26 08:16
6
0
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and 프라그마틱 정품 슬롯버프 (just click the up coming article) learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 불법; click the following page, lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like 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 language requirements, like design and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding 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 upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 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 pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and 프라그마틱 정품 슬롯버프 (just click the up coming article) learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 불법; click the following page, lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like 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 language requirements, like design and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding 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 upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 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 pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록 0
댓글 포인트 안내