Pragmatic Strategies From The Top In The Business
페이지 정보
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor 프라그마틱 무료체험 as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their 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 disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns 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 may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 플레이 a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, 프라그마틱 게임 in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor 프라그마틱 무료체험 as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their 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 disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns 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 may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 플레이 a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, 프라그마틱 게임 in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
- 이전글8 Tips For Boosting Your Auto Collision Lawyer Game 25.01.15
- 다음글The History Of Automotive Key Repair In 10 Milestones 25.01.15
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.