프라그마틱 추천 of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across 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 investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included 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 first to identify the participants' practical 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 in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with 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, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For 프라그마틱 사이트 , TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.