Pragmatic KR

What Is Pragmatic And Why Is Everyone Speakin’ About It?

Study of Chinese Learners’ Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs’ awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.

A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students’ ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren’t always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. 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 classified according to Ishihara (2010)’s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like “sorry” and “thank you.” This is likely 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 the CLKs’ preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as 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 preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in 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 transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and 프라그마틱 불법 discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why some 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 were comprised of 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 their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted 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. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as “foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or “garbage,” to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.