Full name: laughtank57

 Location: Shigman, Panjshir, Mexico

 Address:

 Tel.: 6143442026

 Website: https://postheaven.net/divingjam85/are-you-getting-the-most-of-your-pragmatic-official-website

 User Description: Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in KoreanIn addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.Interviews for refusalThe central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or 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 CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to that 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 still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.Case StudiesThe case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. please click the next post uses various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. just click the following post for instance said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.