angorasuede98

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2). This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as: Discourse Construction Tests The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes. Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics. In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech. A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods. DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and 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 interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse. In 프라그마틱 순위 , DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment. The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations. The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. 프라그마틱 순위 were found to use euphemistic terms such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms. The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior. Interviews for refusal The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools, 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 either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario. The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university. However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them “foreigners” and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess. The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger 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 the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or “garbage” to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers. Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness. The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and 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 get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.