What Can A Weekly Pragmatic Project Can Change Your Life

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using 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 a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms?  프라그마틱 플레이  attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case 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 showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.