Pragmatic Aspects of L2 Communication: From Awareness through Description to Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pragmatic aspects of communication are increasingly high on the agenda of applied linguists, in parallel with the recent advancements in the broader field of pragmatics research. As such, this volume brings together contributions addressing pragmatic aspects of L2 communication, taking into account the complementary perspectives of researchers, language practitioners and language learners. These studies were conducted with both qualitative and quantitative methods, and were set in various linguo-cultural contexts, spanning from Norway through Croatia and Italy to Canada and Colombia. \n \nThe volume illustrates how pragmatic awareness and proficiency are crucial to communicative, interactional and, more generally, social competence. It also sheds light on how the results of pragmatic investigations can be fruitfully applied to language teaching and assessment in primary and tertiary education. Finally, it maintains an expanded perspective on pragmatic knowledge, as it examines both verbal and nonverbal components of communication, showing how they all contribute to the formulation and interpretation of meanings in context. \n \nThe book will be of interest to language students, language teachers and scholars in applied pragmatics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".