Notes

Check Out What Pragmatic Tricks Celebs Are Using
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.


Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can 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 has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating 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 pragmatic norms while 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 in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both 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 review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.

Read More: https://cormier-hirsch.technetbloggers.de/are-you-responsible-for-a-pragmatic-official-website-budget-12-ways-to-spend-your-money