Check Out What Pragmatic Tricks Celebs Are Utilizing
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. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
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 could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with 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 experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including 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 first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to 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 linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
pragmatic kr in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.