Five Pragmatic Lessons From The Pros
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor 프라그마틱 무료 (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
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 even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, 프라그마틱 이미지 like relationship advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to those 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 tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.