Notes

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

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

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by 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 for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety 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. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. 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 one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying 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 attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research 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 either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.


The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop 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 method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.

My Website: https://stanton-villarreal.thoughtlanes.net/what-is-pragmatic-and-how-to-use-it