10 Unexpected Pragmatic Tips

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found 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 should include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
프라그마틱 (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
프라그마틱 of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.