What Is Pragmatic And How To Use It?
Michaela Alonzo
0
3
10.24 11:34
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and 프라그마틱 플레이 non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked 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 main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 게임 leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 순위 including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained 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 to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and 프라그마틱 플레이 non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked 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 main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 게임 leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 순위 including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained 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 to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
