10 Pragmatic That Are Unexpected
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
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 manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded 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 used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject 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 requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁무료 (why not find out more) the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
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 matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
