See What Pragmatic Tricks The Celebs Are Utilizing

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 the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring 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 DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in 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 scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits.  프라그마틱 공식홈페이지  discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.