Why Is It So Useful During COVID-19

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 데모 게임 (iblog.iup.edu) turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and 프라그마틱 플레이 (wiki.iurium.cz wrote in a blog post) should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular 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 could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 플레이 which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법, https://www.maanation.com, involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 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 resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea 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 strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.