5 Pragmatic Lessons From The Professionals

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable 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. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to 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. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, 프라그마틱 불법 (https://Mysitesname.com) the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from 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 attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.