Five Pragmatic Lessons From The Pros

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
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 to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 employed the 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 appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject 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 DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform 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 produce patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting 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 ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.