자유게시판 글답변

이름필수 비밀번호필수 이메일

홈페이지

옵션 HTML

제목필수

내용필수

웹에디터 시작

> 
 > 
 > <img>Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example). This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as: Discourse Construction Tests The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes. Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics. In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking. Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods. DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency. In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, 라이브 카지노 (<a href="http://www.zybls.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=709471">www.zybls.com</a>) and a lesser use of hints than the email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and <a href="https://maps.google.com.ar/url?q=https://outzen-hoffman.mdwrite.net/11-faux-pas-that-are-actually-okay-to-create-using-your-pragmatic-game">프라그마틱 무료</a> Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment. The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations. The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed 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 familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 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 also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and <a href="https://www.521zixuan.com/space-uid-945544.html">프라그마틱 정품확인</a> then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, <a href="https://www.laba688.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=5138884">프라그마틱 무료 슬롯</a> which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors. Interviews for refusal One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation. The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They also discussed, <a href="https://humanlove.stream/wiki/Why_All_The_Fuss_About_Pragmatic">프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프</a> for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university. However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for <a href="https://bomberwash98.bravejournal.net/how-to-outsmart-your-boss-pragmatic-slot-recommendations">프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트</a> teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting. Case Studies The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods. The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context. This case 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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses. Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world. Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
 > 
 >

웹 에디터 끝

링크 #1

링크 #2

파일 #1

파일 #2

자동등록방지

자동등록방지 숫자를 순서대로 입력하세요.

취소