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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the notion of communicative competence, which is widely held responsible for the occurrence of the communicative turn in language teaching methodology. Comparing North American and German discourses about communicative language teaching, this article focuses on two sources that are claimed to be the origins of the communicative turn: Habermas (1971) and Hymes (1972). Both define communicative competence, albeit in different ways. Given the differences between them, the communicative turn and the discourse of communicative language teaching appear inconsistent from the outset. Claiming that the communicative turn resulted from the discovery of communicative competence, which has been declared the ultimate goal of language education, is therefore dubious. The question arises why these historically incommensurable notions of communicative competence have largely been overlooked. A closer look at the commonalities between applied linguists’ attempts to foster communicative language teaching reveals that the success of communicative competence as an overall goal for language education can at least in part be attributed to sociohistoric aspects of zeitgeist as well—which apparently led many to overlook conceptual inconsistencies. The article concludes that the ‘myths of origin’ of the communicative turn ought to be considered in today’s historiography of language teaching methods and CLT as well, as they contribute to our understanding of why communicative language teaching has to be regarded as an umbrella term for teaching approaches that are based on particular social, political, educational and linguistic premises and imaginations.
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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it