markstart01

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2). This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like: Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs) The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation. Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts. In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking. Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods. DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse. In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment. 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 their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific situation. The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as “sorry” and “thank you.” This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging 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 after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Recommended Browsing coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors. Refusal Interviews (RIs) The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation. The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university. However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them “foreigners” and believe that they are incompetent. 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 preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based 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 research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring. 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 essential for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context. This study was based 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 the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or “garbage,” to their responses, which further hampered their response quality. Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world. Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.