horseface6

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2). This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including: Discourse Construction Tests The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and could lead to 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 useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics. In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking. A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection. DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse. In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic 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). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. www.pragmatickr.com have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching. The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation. The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms. The RIs also revealed 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 the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with 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 reflected the actual behavior. Refusal Interviews The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs 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 situation. The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university. However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as “foreignersand consider them 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 no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul. Case Studies The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure. The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context. This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or “garbage” to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers. Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world. The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.