Pragmatic 101"The Ultimate Guide For Beginners
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at 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 who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
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 with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose 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 discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either 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 conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners” and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea 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 investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help 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 the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.