Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2). This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like: Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs) The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes. Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics. In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking. A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection. DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal ability. A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did. Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs) This study investigated Chinese learners' 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 at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching. The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations. The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms. The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors. Refusal Interviews (RIs) The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. https://gonzalez-velazquez-2.federatedjournals.com/15-interesting-facts-about-pragmatic-demo-that-you-didnt-know included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario. The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university. However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul. Case Studies The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure. In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context. This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers. Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness. The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.