Why Pragmatic Is The Right Choice For You?

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were important. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach 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 often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their 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 CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

프라그마틱  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 applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to prove 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 the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad 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 experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.