Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2). This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as: Discourse Construction Tests The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation. Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics. In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking. A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data. DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability. A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching. The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific situation. The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences 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 favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms. The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior. Refusal Interviews One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. 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, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university. However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. https://higgins-mcgraw.hubstack.net/pragmatic-slots-site-tips-from-the-most-effective-in-the-business was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent 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 cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods. In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework. This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses. Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world. The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.