10 Pragmatic That Are Unexpected
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. 프라그마틱 환수율 may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. 프라그마틱 환수율 of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. 프라그마틱 환수율 may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.