Pragmatic Tips From The Best In The Industry

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

프라그마틱 무료 슬롯  of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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 could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship benefits. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreigners” and think they were ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted 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 this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.