tulipriver2

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. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2). This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including: Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs) The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment. Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics. In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech. A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data. DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse. In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching. The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations. The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms. The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors. Refusal Interviews One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs 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 reflect on their responses to the DCT situations. The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university. However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them “foreigners” and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting. Case Studies The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods. In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context. This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or “garbage” to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses. Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world. Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.