Bibliographic record
Abstract
A good mastery of a range of formulaic sequences appears to be an importantcomponent of successful language learning (Wood, 2015; Wray, 2002). Certainformulaic sequences, known as pragmatic formulas, play a vital role in developingsecond language pragmatic competence, as they are crucial for successful speechact realization (Bardovi-Harlig, 2012). However, this category of formulaic languagehas been rather neglected in ESL pedagogy. To date, approaches to teachingformulaic language and pragmatics mainly use awareness-raising techniques; thisapproach, however, lacks potential for retention of formulaic sequences in learners’long-term memory (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2009). This article reports ona 6-hour course that was taught to 4 intermediate ESL students enrolled in oneof the Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) programs in Ontario.The course followed a refined approach to teaching pragmatic formulas thatwent beyond awareness-raising and consisted of three teaching phases: awarenessraising,deep cognitive engagement, and practice. Results of the final assessmentshowed that 2 participants expanded their repertoires of both refusal and thankingpragmatic formulas, while the other 2 participants improved their performance inthe thanking speech acts.Une bonne maitrise d’une gamme de formules semble être une composante importantede l’apprentissage réussi d’une langue (Wood, 2015; Wray, 2002). Certainesformules, qu’on appelle des formules pragmatiques, jouent un rôle essentiel dansle développement de la compétence pragmatique en langue seconde puisqu’ellessont cruciales à la réalisation des actes de langage (Bardovi-Harlig, 2012).Toutefois,la pédagogie en ALS a plutôt négligé cette catégorie de formules. Jusqu’àprésent, les approches en enseignement des formules et de la pragmatique reposentsurtout sur des techniques consistant à faire prendre conscience des expressions.Cependant, cette approche n’est pas susceptible d’aider les étudiants à retenir lesformules à long terme (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2009). Cet article rend compted’un cours de 6 heures enseigné à 4 étudiants intermédiaires en ALS inscrits à unprogramme de CLIC (Cours de langue pour les immigrants au Canada) en Ontario.Le cours a adopté une approche plus poussée à l’enseignement des formulespragmatiques qui dépassait la conscientisation et qui s’est déroulé en trois étapes:la prise de conscience, un engagement cognitif profond et la pratique. Les résultatsde l’évaluation finale indiquent que 2 participants ont élargi leur répertoire de formules pragmatiques visant le refus et celles visant le remerciement, alors que les 2 autres ont amélioré leur rendement en matière de formules de remerciement.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.269 | 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".