Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2). This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as: Discourse Construction Tests The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes. Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts. In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech. A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection. DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence. A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did. https://rentry.co/8257o98k (MQs) This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment. The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario. The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is 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' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. 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 also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior. Refusal Interviews (RIs) The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations. The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university. The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009). These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy. Case Studies The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods. In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework. This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses. Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world. Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.