brickborder16

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2). This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including: Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs) The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes. 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 alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts. In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech. Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data. DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence. In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data. 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 of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching. The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario. The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like “sorry” or “thank you”. This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's 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 varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer 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 pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior. Refusal Interviews (RIs) One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. 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 over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university. However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are “foreigners” and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy. Case Studies The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods. In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework. This study was based 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 students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or “garbage,” to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response. Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension. The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.