Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2). This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as: Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs) The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation. Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics. In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech. Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection. DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability. In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching. The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario. The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. https://martensen-steele.technetbloggers.de/10-pragmatic-slot-experience-that-are-unexpected were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms. The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior. Refusal Interviews (RIs) The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario. The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. https://anotepad.com/notes/sgs47fsh attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university. However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul. Case Studies The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods. In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger 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 the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses. The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world. Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.