Pragmatic Rules to the Desiderative Questions in Japanese Learning and Teaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A careful literature review finds that the Desiderative Questions in Japanese should follow certain pragmatic rules due to their concerning with privacy issue. However, a survey to a group of Japanese textbooks also reveals that this finding has not being reflected in those textbooks widely used by Japanese majors in China. Reconsideration should be paid to such a tendency of neglecting pragmatic rules while teaching grammatical items. Key words: the Desiderative Questions, pragmatic, Japanese teaching Resume: L’essai present, apres l’etude de massives recherches auterieures, trouve que l’interrogation de desir dans le japonais subit certaines restrictions dans la pratique parce qu’elle touche les secrets de l’interlocuteur. Cependant, les resultats de recherche ne figurent point dans les manuels en vigueur. Il existe dans les materiaux actuels une tendance qui consiste a privilegier la grammarie au detriment de la pragmatique. Mots-cles: interrogation de desir, pragmatique, enseignement du japonais 摘要：論文考察了大量先行研究，發現由於涉及到對方的私人領域，日語的願望疑問句在實際使用上存在特定的語用制約。而考察現行的一些教科書發現，這些研究結果絲毫未在教科書中得到反映，現行教材普遍存在一種重語法輕語用的傾向。 關鍵詞：願望疑問句；語用；日語教學
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".