What Is Pragmatic And How To Utilize It

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The 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 reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 추천 - 170.187.182.121 - metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 무료 (sneak a peek here) L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a 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 in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. 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 choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with 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 essential for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.