Why Pragmatic You'll Use As Your Next Big Obsession
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, 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 complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners” and think they were unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to 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 consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. 프라그마틱 데모 is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This 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 the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.