How Much Can Pragmatic Experts Make

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 the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 불법 (official Bookmarkshut blog) result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.

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 of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 프라그마틱 무료 to complete the 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, on average, the CLKs rejected 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 pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. They described, 프라그마틱 사이트 for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students 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 for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.