Why Is It So Useful During COVID-19
From Shiapedia
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 카지노 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 환수율 (his explanation) the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' 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). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. 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 their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 이미지 in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 추천 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 in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate 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 answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
