Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2). This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as: Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs) The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation. Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics. In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech. A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods. DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence. In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching. First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation. The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms. The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior. Interviews for refusal A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required 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 asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation. The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university. The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy. Case Studies The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods. The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context. This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers. The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness. https://pragmatickr.com/ were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.