Notes

What Is The Reason? Pragmatic Is Fast Becoming The Most Popular Trend In 2024
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 significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include 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 based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed 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 coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

프라그마틱 이미지 in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.

Read More: https://pragmatickr.com/