Why Pragmatic Will Be Your Next Big Obsession

Study of Chinese Learners’ Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs’ understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners’ choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants’ choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)’s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This is likely 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’ preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on 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 revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as “foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren’t the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea’s pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise 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.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.