How Can A Weekly Pragmatic Project Can Change Your Life
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. 프라그마틱슬롯 calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with 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 familiarity 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 varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason 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 included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect 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 answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings 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. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.