5 Pragmatic Lessons From The Pros

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful 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 can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. 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 the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then click the following post 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 conform to the pragmatic norms 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 aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
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 second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.