winghoe7

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2). This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as: Discourse Construction Tests The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 무료 is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes. Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics. In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech. A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as 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 are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence. In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment. The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations. The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms – and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms. The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior. Refusal Interviews A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation. The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university. The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul. Case Studies The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods. The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger 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 showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or “garbage,” to their responses, further reducing their response quality. The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world. Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.