10 Things Everyone Gets Wrong Concerning Pragmatic
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can 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 useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
슬롯 compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach 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 employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's 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. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The 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 situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns 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. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, 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 reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.