Why Is It So Useful During COVID-19

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables 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 emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by 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 preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed 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 behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question 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 asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and 프라그마틱 무료체험 multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for 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 method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based 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 the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily 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 aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.