What Pragmatic Will Be Your Next Big Obsession

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research utilized the 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 discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. 프라그마틱 무료스핀 cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used 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 led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which 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 were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social 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 the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners” and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 studies to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.