How Much Do Pragmatic Experts Earn: Difference between revisions
Teri585839 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
ShayneGramp (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
(41 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean<br><br>CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and | Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean<br><br>CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).<br><br>This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:<br><br>Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)<br><br>The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.<br><br>Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.<br><br>In the field of linguistics, [http://redirect.manmanbuy.com/redirectUrl.aspx?webid=1&tourl=https://pragmatickr.com/ 무료슬롯 프라그마틱] 슬롯 ([http://a-shadow.com/iwate/utl/hrefjump.cgi?URL=https://pragmatickr.com/ read more on A Shadow`s official blog]) DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.<br><br>Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 ([http://vaithieuthanhha.net.vn/?wptouch_switch=desktop&redirect=//pragmatickr.com%2F vaithieuthanhha.net.vn]) however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.<br><br>DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.<br><br>In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.<br><br>Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)<br><br>This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.<br><br>The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.<br><br>The results of the MQs and [https://www.calcoloprestito.org/guida/click.php?url=https://pragmatickr.com/ 프라그마틱 홈페이지] 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 is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.<br><br>The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.<br><br>Refusal Interviews (RIs)<br><br>One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.<br><br>The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.<br><br>However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).<br><br>These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.<br><br>Case Studies<br><br>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 and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.<br><br>In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.<br><br>This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.<br><br>Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.<br><br>Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would. |
Latest revision as of 03:07, 25 January 2025
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯 (read more on A Shadow`s official blog) DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 (vaithieuthanhha.net.vn) however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 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 is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their 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 CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm 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 and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include 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 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.