The Case Study of Pragmatic Failure in Second Language of Pakistani Students
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
The current study explores the pragmatic failure in the second language (L2) of Pakistani learners at the graduate level. Pragmatic failure occurs mainly because of the lack of the cultural awareness and knowledge, and it offers an angle for the discussion in this study. However, the development of L2 learners’ pragmatic competence plays a significant role in accomplishment of communicative competence. This study was aimed to examine the relationship between pragmatics and language proficiency. The data were selected from two universities, i.e., University of Management and Technology, Lahore, and Minhaj University Lahore. The sample of 80 L2 learners participated in this study, and forty students were selected from each university. They were studying English as L2 for four years, respectively. All learners were Urdu speakers and their age ranged from 22 to 28. To assess participants’ language proficiency, Oxford Quick Placement Test (1999) was employed. The data were analyzed through the SPSS software (version 22) to answer the research questions. The descriptive analysis is utilized to find out the results. In order to evaluate the data, One Way ANOVA was run to see the level of significance among the three groups, i.e., High, Mid and Low. It is 0.445 between High and Mid group, and finally the level of significance between Low and Mid group is 0.001. The results reveal that L2 Pakistani learners have a lot of problems not only in pragmatic competence but in language proficiency as well. However, there is a significant relationship between pragmatics and language proficiency. And finally, it is found that there is no difference between male and female learners in pragmatic field, and eventually we came to this conclusion that pragmatic feature of English is predictable, namely, those students who are in a high level of language proficiency do better in pragmatic situations.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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