How Pragmatic Rose To The #1 Trend On Social Media

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. 프라그마틱 무료체험 are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely 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 relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined 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, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of 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 first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to 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 an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached 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 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.