Pragmatic Tips From The Top In The Business

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.


In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing 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 the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. 프라그마틱 무료 were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this 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 of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.

Edit Report
Pub: 20 Sep 2024 03:59 UTC
Views: 45