quivercoffee98

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2). This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as: Discourse Construction Tests The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and 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 can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts. In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech. A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of 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 are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse. A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment. The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations. The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like “sorry” or “thank you”. This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms. The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, 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 results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior. Refusal Interviews (RIs) The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation. The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university. However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as “foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul. Case Studies The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess. In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context. This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or “garbage,” to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response. Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness. The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide 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 she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.