Why Pragmatic Is Harder Than You Think
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed 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 performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar in nature 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 may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.