5 Pragmatic Lessons Learned From Professionals
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 이미지 , the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for 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 relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. 프라그마틱 정품확인 was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read 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 behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted 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 study showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. 프라그마틱 정품확인 were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.