How Much Can Pragmatic Experts Earn
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 슬롯무료 (bookmark-dofollow.com) they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. 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 to external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and 라이브 카지노 punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid 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 an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.