Exploring Pragmatic Failure into the Writing of Young EFL Learners: A Critical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This present study provides overviews of the phenomenon in EFL writing instruction in basic education in mainland China, which in its natural sense never proceeds among young learners at high school level. Then it investigated 34 students’ short in-class compositions. Beyond many spelling and syntactic errors, their pragmatic failures are therefore categorized into pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic failures in accordance with Jenny Thomas (1983). It finds that pragmalinguistic failures are as follows: verbose appositions, combination of two subordinate clauses, misunderstandings of word meaning, Chinese construction of sentences, run-on sentences, independent subordinate clauses, the omission of relative pronouns and that sociopragmatic failure, considerably rare, lies in their perception and expression of specific Chinese-based pragmatic conventions. The author argues that the causes of pragmatic failure are their limited language proficiency and L1 pragmatic transfer. Based on the investigation and findings of the study, the author puts forward some tentative solutions to achieve pragmatic appropriateness in writing: (1) Appropriate in-class introduction of target language pragmatic knowledge and culture; (2) The awareness of distinguishing the target language with L1.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".