menudill86

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2). This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as: Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs) The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes. Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts. In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech. A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 pragmatic kr were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection. DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence. In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching. The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario. The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms. The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior. Refusal Interviews (RIs) The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations. The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university. The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are “foreigners” and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul. Case Studies The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods. In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study 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 test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or “garbage,” to their responses, further detracting from their response quality. Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world. Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.