How Much Can Pragmatic Experts Earn?
Estelle
0
2
17:21
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for 프라그마틱 환수율 cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the 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 through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). 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 performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, 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 MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for 프라그마틱 불법 instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to that 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 official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators improve their methods of 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
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 to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for 프라그마틱 환수율 cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the 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 through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). 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 performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, 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 MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for 프라그마틱 불법 instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to that 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 official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators improve their methods of 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
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 to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글 (0)
