https://glamorouslengths.com/author/daisybeet1/
last logged in on September 18, 2024 9:14 am
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in KoreanIn addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were important. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for 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 alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.프라그마틱 정품인증 (MQs)This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.Interviews for refusalThe key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 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 their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as “foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.Case StudiesThe case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader 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 learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.Moreover, the participants of 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 third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.