5 Pragmatic Projects For Every Budget

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and 프라그마틱 환수율 affordances. They also discussed, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 슬롯 무료; use www.google.st here, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 홈페이지 - http://bridgehome.cn/copydog/home.php?mod=Space&uid=1799887 - social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.