Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the connections between cross-cultural communication and pragmatics and illuminates the implementation of pragmatic principles in cross-cultural communication. Speech act theory proves that one linguistic form has different functions in another language and culture; one linguistic function has other forms in different language and culture. The general existence of cooperative principles, face-work theory and politeness principles promotes the successful cross-cultural communication but cultural difference in understanding pragmatic principles usually blocks the cross-cultural communication. Pragmatics failure occurs in every aspect of communication. Only when we notice the linguistic and cultural features, accept cultural difference and avoid failure in expression, we can use the language in a proper way to effect successful communication. Keywords: pragmatics principles, cross-cultural communication, language, culture, pragmatics failure Resume Ce texte present fait une analyse sur les relations entre la communication interculturelle et le pragmatisme en faisant une interpretation sur l’usage du pragmatisme dans la communication interculturelle. La theorie de l’acte de l’enonce devoile que une forme de langage a de differentes fonctions dans le contexte de differentes langues - cultures et que la meme fonction de langage dispose de differentes formes d’expression du langage dans de differentes langues - cultures. L’existence generale du principe de l’interaction, de la theorie de face et du principe de la politesse favorise le deroulement de la communication interculturelle tandis que le decalage culturel dans la comprehension du principe pragmatique constitue souvent l’obstacle pour la communication interculturelle. L’erreur pragmatique se manifeste dans beaucoup d’aspect. Dans la communication interculturelle, nous ne pouvons atteindre le but de faire bon usage du langage qu’a condition de prendre en conscience les caracteristiques de differentes langues – cultures et les decalages pour eviter les erreurs dans l’expression et ainsi garantir le bon deroulement de la communication. Mots-cles : principe du pragmatisme, communication interculturelle, langue, culture, erreur pragmatique 摘要 本文分析了跨文化交際和語用學之間的關係，並闡明了語用規則在跨文化交際中的運用。言語行爲理論揭示了同一語言形式在不同語言和文化中具有不同功能，同一種語言功能在不同語言和文化中具有不同的語言表現形式。合作原則、面子理論和禮貌原則的普遍性存在有助於跨文化交際的順利進行，而語用規則理解的文化差異則常常會造成跨文化交際的障礙。語用失誤表現在方方面面，在跨文化交際中，我們只有有意識地注意不同語言文化的特點，順應差異，防止表達失誤，才能達到正確運用語言的目的，使交際得以順利進行。 關鍵詞：語用學原則；跨文化交際；語言；文化；語用失誤
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".