15 Interesting Facts About Pragmatic That You've Never Heard Of
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of 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 were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: 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 included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. 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 to external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives 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 study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong 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 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 questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.