Five Pragmatic Lessons From Professionals

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

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 numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 (Etalon.Su) their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, 프라그마틱 정품인증 the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, 슬롯 which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's 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 instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and 프라그마틱 순위 the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.