The Under-Appreciated Benefits Of Pragmatic
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist 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 important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. 프라그마틱 불법 were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as “foreigners” and think they were ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for 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 allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.