MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1908363953 · doi:10.18806/tesl.v30i7.1153

Teaching Pragmatic Competence: A Journey from Teaching Cultural Facts to Teaching Cultural Awareness

2014· article· en· W1908363953 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Iryna Lenchuk, Amer Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueTESL Canada Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPragmaticsSociocultural evolutionLinguistic competenceCommunicative competenceCompetence (human resources)PsychologyLinguisticsCultural competencePedagogyLanguage educationTeaching methodMathematics educationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pragmatic competence is one of the essential competences taught in the second language classroom. The Canadian Language Benchmarks (CCLB, 2012a), the standard document referred to in any federally funded program of ESL teach- ing in Canada, acknowledges the importance of this competence, yet at the same time notes the limited resources available to help ESL teachers address it in the classroom. Informed by the theoretical construct of communicative competence and its application to second language learning, the article offers an exemplar of the whats and hows of teaching pragmatics in the ESL classroom. The article stresses the importance of making explicit to the learners the sociolinguistic and sociocultural variables that underlie native speakers’ linguistic choices. It is hoped that ESL learners will thus develop a better understanding of the reasons that make native speakers choose one linguistic expression rather than others when performing a certain linguistic act. The speech act of complimenting is used here as an exemplar.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.047
Scholarly communication0.0260.015
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0050.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTESL Canada JournalSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207