https://glamorouslengths.com/author/clouddonkey2/
last logged in on September 12, 2024 5:10 am
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in KoreanIn addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:Discourse Construction TestsThe discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.프라그마틱 순위 showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.Refusal Interviews (RIs)The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.Case StudiesThe case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.