These Are Myths And Facts Behind Pragmatic
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist 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 the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding 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 DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 플레이 정품 (click through the following web site) and 프라그마틱 정품 RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. 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 further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in 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 rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. 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 risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of 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 of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.
