5 Pragmatic Projects That Work For Any Budget

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and 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 classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify 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 was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For 프라그마틱 무료 , they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators 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 an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, 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 their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.