10 Healthy Habits To Use Pragmatic
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its drawbacks. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized 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 to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
슬롯 can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged 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 looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 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 logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
슬롯 suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
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 including documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension 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 use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.