What Is Pragmatic And How To Utilize It
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found 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 used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. For 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 , they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the 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 that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.