https://glamorouslengths.com/author/chardslash2/
last logged in on September 12, 2024 2:52 am
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in KoreanIn addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.Despite 프라그마틱 순위 , the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 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 CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.Interviews for refusalThe central 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 using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. 프라그마틱 정품확인 did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.Case StudiesThe case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.