Spontaneous classroom engagement facilitating development of L2 pragmatic competence
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
Abstract The question of how to teach toward social, cultural and linguistic L2 pragmatic competence has raised serious challenges ( Kasper, 1997 ). This is more the case for spoken rather than written discourse. As can be expected, the underlying pragmatic implications of spontaneous face-to-face communication naturally constrains the interactional scope and its potential pedagogical application. To address this issue, this naturalistic study explores two key potential contributors to the development of oral pragmatic competence: meta-pragmatic classroom conversational discourse and the course framework supporting that kind of relatively spontaneous interaction. An English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course provided fluency practice protocols, instruction in pragmatic categories, analysis of conversational data and “live” in-class intervention, focusing on meaning and alternate expressions and forms. Those interventions were designed to enhance learners’ ability to self-assess, monitor and expand their interactional repertoires. Part of a larger research project examining principles of pragmatics applied in EAP instruction, this study focuses on data from spontaneous classroom interactions situated within the integrated instructional framework of the course. Results present a range of strategies employed by the instructor consistent with current theoretical models of factors or pedagogical interventions that facilitate development of pragmatic competence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it