프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized 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 level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for 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 preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one 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 a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.