http://b3.zcubes.com/v.aspx?mid=13293676 of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2). This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including: Discourse Construction Tests The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes. Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts. In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech. A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection. DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse. A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment. The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations. The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms. The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors. https://pinkbase6.bravejournal.net/the-reasons-to-focus-on-making-improvements-in-pragmatic-slot-recommendations in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations. The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university. However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow 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 consulting firm based in Seoul. Case Studies The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods. The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context. This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers. The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world. Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.