peanutwren38

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2). This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like: Discourse Construction Tests The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes. Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts. In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking. 프라그마틱 불법 used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection. DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence. A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching. The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation. The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading 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 varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms. The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior. Interviews for refusal The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations. The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university. However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as “foreigners” and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns 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 may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul. Case Studies The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods. The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context. This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or “garbage” to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers. The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of 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 asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness. The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.