5 Pragmatic Lessons Learned From Professionals
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses 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 investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. 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 their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had 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 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 무료체험 [ezproxy.cityu.edu.hk said] Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be 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 diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 불법 (this contact form) of learners in the classroom and beyond. 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 research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly 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 showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
