plotletter3

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example). This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as: Discourse Construction Tests The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes. Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics. In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking. Recent research utilized a 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 select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection. DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse. A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment. The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation. The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as “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 CLKs' preferences 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 would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms. The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior. Refusal Interviews (RIs) The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about 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 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university. The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that 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 still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators create better methods for 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 an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods. The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context. This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or “garbage,” to their responses, which further hampered their response quality. Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness. The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.