10 Pragmatic Tricks All Experts Recommend

Study of Chinese Learners’ Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs’ awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 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 test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT 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 communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners’ communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students’ ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants’ practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara’s (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like “sorry” or “thank you”. This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean’s pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs’ preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms – and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the 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 on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are “foreigners” and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers’ pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to 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 an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose 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 study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or “garbage,” to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved 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 regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.