Notes

What Pragmatic Should Be Your Next Big Obsession?
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:


Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 pragmatickr could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, 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 third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.

Homepage: https://pragmatickr.com/