ottersalary1

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2). This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including: Discourse Construction Tests The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment. Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts. In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech. A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data. DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse. A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study examined Chinese learners making 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 upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment. The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. 프라그마틱 플레이 were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of 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 analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms. The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and 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 the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors. Interviews with Refusal One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation. The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university. However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them “foreigners” and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul. Case Studies The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods. In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context. This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or “garbage” to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses. Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension. The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.