10 Tips To Build Your Pragmatic Empire

Study of Chinese Learners’ Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs’ understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable 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 alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research 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 were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants’ pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara’s (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean 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 a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing 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 read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them “foreigners” and believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea’s 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 method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or “garbage,” to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.