10 Pragmatic Tips All Experts Recommend

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers.  프라그마틱 슈가러쉬  may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about 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 primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s 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. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose 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 found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by 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 showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools 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 either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

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 create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.