Pragmatic Strategies From The Top In The Business
페이지 정보
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of 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 designers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 공식홈페이지 (Https://Imoodle.Win/Wiki/12_Companies_Are_Leading_The_Way_In_Pragmatic) teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 무료 추천 - Https://zenwriting.net/ - the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, 라이브 카지노 CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. 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. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of 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 designers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 공식홈페이지 (Https://Imoodle.Win/Wiki/12_Companies_Are_Leading_The_Way_In_Pragmatic) teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 무료 추천 - Https://zenwriting.net/ - the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, 라이브 카지노 CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. 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. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
