5 Pragmatic Lessons From Professionals

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

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 the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 무료 (bookmarkilo.com) metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 이미지 Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in a 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 subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, 프라그마틱 플레이 and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.