Pragmatic Strategies From The Top In The Business
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower 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 tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. 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 actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea 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 an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
프라그마틱 정품 in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.