10 Pragmatic Tricks Experts Recommend
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid 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 is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 무료체험 turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated 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 of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, 프라그마틱 순위 DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific situation.
The results 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 could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based 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 favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help 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 a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
