activepull5

프라그마틱 무료스핀 pragmatic korea of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2). This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as: Discourse Construction Tests The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation. Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand 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 for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking. Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection. DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency. In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment. The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario. The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed 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 of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms. The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors. Refusal Interviews A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their 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, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university. However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are “foreigners” and believe they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul. Case Studies The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique subjects 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 help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context. This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or “garbage,” to their responses, further detracting from their response quality. Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world. The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.