What Is Pragmatic And How To Use It?

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research.  프라그마틱 순위  has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range 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 MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on 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 revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The key 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. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This 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 test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind 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 refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.