5 Pragmatic Lessons From The Professionals

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding 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 reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted 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 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 with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals 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 identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as “foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the 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 the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were 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 aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.