waterquince6

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2). This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including: Discourse Construction Tests The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment. Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating 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 could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics. In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech. A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection. DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse. A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment. First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations. The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as “sorry” and “thank you.” This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 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 showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. 프라그마틱 이미지 coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior. Refusal Interviews (RIs) The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations. The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns 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 closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university. The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreigners” and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul. Case Studies The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods. In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context. This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or “garbage” to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers. Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness. Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.