Why The Pragmatic Is Beneficial In COVID-19

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role 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 analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. talking to could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. 프라그마틱 무료게임 is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.

Edit
Pub: 17 Sep 2024 18:19 UTC
Views: 7