How Much Do Pragmatic Experts Make?
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for 프라그마틱 정품인증 their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could cause 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 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 the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 환수율 the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
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, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (bookmarkingworld.Review) we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with 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 determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for 프라그마틱 정품인증 their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could cause 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 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 the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 환수율 the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
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, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (bookmarkingworld.Review) we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with 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 determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.