Second/Foreign Language Learners and Narrative Film Comprehension: An Intercultural Reception Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sociocultural concepts (Krashen, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978; Wood et al., 1976) and a constructivist narrative film theory (Bordwell, 1985) offer interdisciplinary insights for a study exploring second/foreign language (L2/FL) interpretations of two intercultural films (films made in linguistically and socioculturally diverse contexts) with English audio/dubbing (Chafe, 1980; Desilla, 2014; Erbaugh, 2010). A qualitative reception study examined the potential of intertextual (i.e., knowledge of other texts) and cultural information as learning scaffolds as well as style and narrative cues as forms of comprehensible input used by post-secondary international Chinese and domestic Canadian students as they watched sequences from Shaolin Soccer (Chow, 2001) (English dubbed) and Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (Thurber, 2004). Sociocultural concepts highlight the interdependent, collaborative, and mediating relationship between intercultural narrative cinematic systems and the viewer’s prior textual and personal experiences used to scaffold their comprehension (Vygotsky, 1978; Wood et al., 1976). A constructivist theory of film narration is informed by sociocultural concepts to describe film’s narrative structures and stylistic devices as multiple forms of comprehensible input (Bordwell, 1985; Branigan, 1992; Krashen, 1981). Findings demonstrated that while the Chinese and domestic Canadian audiences did not always interpret audio-visual information the way the filmmakers intended, overall comprehension of the U.S. and Chinese film clips (with English audio) was nevertheless effectively achieved using a personal mixture of prior knowledge and narrative information. For instance, groups relied heavily on intertextual knowledge and cultural information from their background as resources for comprehension. Additionally, while some of the participants felt they could not describe the function of the narrative film elements using technical film language, they nonetheless used narrative and stylistic cues to justify their interpretations of the film sequences. These findings highlight the need for more intercultural media literacy pedagogy within the L2/FL classroom.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".