What Is The Reason? Pragmatic Is Fast Becoming The Trendiest Thing Of 2024
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
프라그마틱 플레이 (MQs)
This study examined 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 intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. 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, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with 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 of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic 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 completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked 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 disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.