A Guide To Pragmatic In 2024
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study 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 request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural 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 interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. click the following post was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing 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 an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects 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 help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
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 the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.