| Title | The Top Pragmatic Gurus Are Doing Three Things |
|
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2). This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including: Discourse Construction Tests The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes. Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts. In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech. Recent research used the DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods. DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal competence. In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching. 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, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario. The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms. The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior. Refusal Interviews (RIs) The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario. The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university. However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness 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 pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul. Case Studies The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods. In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context. This study was based 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 this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response. The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world. The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so. |
|