Why Pragmatic You'll Use As Your Next Big Obsession

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.

Edit Report
Pub: 11 Sep 2024 09:18 UTC
Views: 30