MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W201333993

Intercultural Miscommunication: Impact on ESOL Students and Implications for ESOL Teachers

2012· article· en· W201333993 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of instructional psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntercultural communicationPedagogyPsychologyFirst languageSecond-language acquisitionIntercultural relationsLanguage educationLanguage assessmentSociologyLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intercultural miscommunication occurs when there is a breakdown in communication between speakers of two different cultures and languages due to cultural differences and/or sociolinguistic transfer. Intercultural miscommunication has tremendous impact on ESOL students' academic learning at North American schools. This paper examines the nature of intercultural communication, the causes of intercultural miscommunication, and its impact on ESOL students. It also suggests instructional implications for teachers to help their ESOL students avoid being misunderstood by their North American peers and teachers. ********** The number of English-to-speakers-of-other-languages (ESOL) students has more than doubled since 1980s and has recently grown significantly at North American schools (Canadian Bureau for International Education, 2010; U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Research in both second language education and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) has begun to show that ESOL students' insufficient English language proficiency, coupled with their unfamiliarity with the North American has prevented them from communicating effectively with North Americans in their cross-cultural learning (Bontrager, Birch, & Kracht, 1990; Huang, 2005; Huang & Foote, 2010; Huang & Kathleen, 2009; Huang & Klinger, 2006; Huang & Rinaldo, 2009; Leung & Berry, 2001). The questions of what is the nature of intercultural communication, why intercultural miscommunication occurs, how it impacts ESOL students, and what ESOL teachers can do to help avoid intercultural miscommunications in the classroom merit closer examination. This paper first describes the relationship between and language. It then discusses the nature of intercultural communication. Following that, it examines the causes of intercultural miscommunication and its impact on ESOL students. It finally suggests instructional implications for ESOL teachers. Culture and Language There is a very close relationship between and language. Culture plays an immeasurable role in language use because it encompasses the way a language is structured and used (Liddicoat, 2008). Kuo and Lai (2006) believe that not only changes people's values and habits, but also affects people's language and behavior (p. 5). Further, they indicate that a language adapts to the current by the introduction of new vocabulary through pop culture and the development of slang words in the passage of time. Specifically in relation to language, is not just a marginal part of language; but rather has a central relationship with language (Chang, 2002; Crago, Eriks-Brophy, Pesco & McAlpine, 1997; Liddicoat, 2009). Communication is the use of a culturally based code in a culturally shaped context to develop and understand a culturally shaped meaning (Liddicoat, 2009). This view relays the message that is not simply a factor in the communication system affecting the competence and success of communication, but rather the central component of the communication system. It is difficult to see the embedded in a language when intracultural communication is taking place because values, beliefs, and topics are shared. However, the study of intercultural communication leads researchers to find that each lexical and grammatical item of a language has a cultural background within this item and this idea is very broad and complex (Liddicoat, 2009). Intercultural Communication Many early second language acquisition studies were based on the accuracy of language use that focused on the phonological, lexical and grammatical systems of a language. However, second language instruction and learning began to shift the focus to communicative competence or the sociocultural rules of speaking that focuses on using language appropriately (Chang, 2009). In other words, learners need to focus on when to speak, in what matter to speak and to whom, all skills that can be difficult to master when transferring sociocultural rules from their first language. …

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.337 · 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