lotionwrench9

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2). This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including: Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs) The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes. Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics. In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech. A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers 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 must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection. DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence. A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study investigated 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). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment. First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario. The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating 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 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms. The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior. Interviews for refusal The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as 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 in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations. The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university. The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns 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 a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy. Case Studies The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods. The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context. This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or “garbage” to their responses. 프라그마틱 체험 pragmatic kr 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 university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension. Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.