Find Out What Pragmatic The Celebs Are Making Use Of

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific 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 understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read 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.
Refusal Interviews
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as “foreigners” and think they were ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. 프라그마틱 체험 may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to 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 strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method uses multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to define 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 can be omitted. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks 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 tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.