Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2). This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as: Discourse Construction Tests The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes. Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts. In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech. A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods. DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence. A recent study 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 requests and utilized more hints than email data. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment. The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations. The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms. The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. https://articlescad.com/a-guide-to-pragmatic-free-slots-from-start-to-finish-127536.html were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior. Refusal Interviews (RIs) One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations. The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university. However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul. Case Studies The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods. In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context. This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response. The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world. The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.