10 Unexpected Pragmatic Tips
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could cause 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 valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in 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 particular scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
please click the up coming website page in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about 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 responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider 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 revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.