Notes

Why Pragmatic Will Be Your Next Big Obsession
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. 프라그마틱 게임 focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of 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 discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.


Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions 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 of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.

My Website: https://pragmatickr.com/