Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean<br /><br />In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).<br /><br />This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:<br /><br />Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)<br /><br />The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.<br /><br />Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.<br /><br />In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.<br /><br />Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among 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 efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.<br /><br />DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.<br /><br />In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.<br /><br />Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)<br /><br />This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.<br /><br />First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.<br /><br />The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.<br /><br />The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.<br /><br />Refusal Interviews (RIs)<br /><br />One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various 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 native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.<br /><br />The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.<br /><br />The interviewees expressed 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 local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).<br /><br />These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.<br /><br /><a href="https://pragmatickr.com/">무료 프라그마틱</a> is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.<br /><br />The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.<br /><br />This case 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 this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.<br /><br />Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.<br /><br /><br /><br />Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.<br /><br />