bailtail20

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2). This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as: Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs) The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment. Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts. In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking. Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection. DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse. A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment. The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations. The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like “sorry” and “thank you.” This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms – and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms. The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior. Refusal Interviews (RIs) One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation. The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university. However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as “foreigners” and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy. Case Studies The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess. The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic 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], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or “garbage” to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers. The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world. The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.