The Little-Known Benefits Of Pragmatic

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including 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, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

슬롯  for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various 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 in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns 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. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners” and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.