Pragmatic Strategies From The Top In The Business
페이지 정보
Katia 24-10-31 05:41 view25 Comment0관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable 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 feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 정품인증 and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 공식홈페이지 (Https://Heavenarticle.com) 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 was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, 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 asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable 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 feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 정품인증 and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 공식홈페이지 (Https://Heavenarticle.com) 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 was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, 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 asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.