Analysis of Teacher Talk on the Basis of Relevance Theory1/ANALYSE DU DISCOURS DE L'ENSEIGNANT SUR LA BASE DE LA THEORIE DE LA PERTINENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Teacher talk is usually viewed as one of the decisive factors of success or failure in classroom teaching. Based on the basic principles of Relevance Theory, the present thesis has focused on the teacher-student interaction in form of question-answer in language classrooms and tried to analyze talk under the framework of Relevance Theory to prove that Relevance Theory is able to provide an explanation for This thesis proposes some pedagogical implications for successful talk and teacher-student interaction in EFL context. Keywords: talk; teacher-student interaction; Relevance Theory Resume: Le discours de l'enseignant est generalement considere comme l'un des facteurs decisifs de succes ou d'echec dans l'enseignement en classe. Basee sur des principes elementaires de theorie de la pertinence, la presente these a mis l'accent sur l'interaction enseignant-eleve sous forme de question-reponse dans les cours de langue et tente d'analyser les discours de l'enseignant dans le cadre de la theorie de la pertinence afin de prouver que la theorie de la pertinence est capable de fournir une explication pour le discours de l'enseignant. Cette these propose quelques implications pedagogiques pour les discours de l'enseignant et de l'interaction enseignant-eleve reussis dans le contexte de EFL. Mots-cles: discours de l'enseignant; interaction enseignant-eleve; theorie de la pertinence 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Significance of the research Relevance Theory is the foundation of cognitive pragmatics. It has been widely used to different areas, such as translation, stylistic explanation, grammar and discourse analysis. Although Relevance Theory is on communication and cognition, it is a general cognitive principle. Teacher talk in English classroom interaction is a form of communication, which can be studied from the cognitive perspective theoretically. The study of talk under the framework of Relevance Theory is expected to widen the practical applications of Relevance Theory and to obtain some implications for EFL teachers to improve teacher-student interaction. It is of theoretic significance and practical significance. 1.2 Definition of talk What is talk? The definition is very simple and self-evident. Teacher talk means that teachers address classroom language learners differently from the way that they address other kinds of classroom learners according to Ellis (1994). They make adjustments to both language form and language function in order to facilitate communication. These adjustments are referred to as teacher talk. Teacher talk is very important for both classroom teaching organization and students' language learning in the process of foreign language learning and second language acquisition, because talk is an instrument of implementing teaching plan. 1.3 Teacher's feedback Feedback is the response to efforts by the learner to communicate, which includes the notion of error correction. Feedback has been widely investigated in information theory and general communication research outside classroom or language learning context (Annett, 1969). It has been suggested that feedback plays a major role in helping learners to test hypotheses they have formed about the rule system of the target language (Ellis, 1985). Behavioral psychologists were the first to recognize the power of feedback as a motivating influence. Feedback refers to the informative responses to what learners say or do, for example, a nod, smile, puzzled frown, or clarifying question are all useful feedback to learners. Now we just want to talk about how teachers use talk to make error correction on a student's spoken language, including a response either to the content of what a student has produced or to the form of an utterance. 1.4 Error correction on content There are some ways of error correction, such as: 1 indicating an incorrect answer. …
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".