Questions related to Pragmatics
My Research Topic is Empowering Consumers Through The Metaverse: Exploring How FMCG Brands Are Adapting To Enhance Your Shopping Experience.
• To investigate the opportunities and challenges presented by the metaverse for FMCG brands in effectively reaching a diverse global audience.
• To analyse the influence and effectiveness of the metaverse in enhancing FMCG brand engagement with consumers.
Data collection: primary data with questionnaire (closed end).
So depending on the topic my research philosophy will it be pragmatic approach ?
DEFINING THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs, meant for the theoretical approach in physics)
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
In the definition of the ontology of physics (generally as the study of the cosmos), I shall posit the necessity of the highest possible grounds that I find as fundamental for physics and philosophy alike. The reason for these Categories’ (a few universals that apply to all existents, and not merely to all discourses) being meant also for philosophy (especially for the philosophy of science) is that both philosophy and physics have physical existents in common as their object range.
Philosophy additionally has the pure universals of physics within the ambit of study, and both physics and philosophy have different manners of treating their object range. Hence, well-grounded physical foundations cannot do without the most suitable among these universals as its fundamental Categories, selected from among the universals forming part of the objects of philosophy.
Although many physicists and mathematicians may find the following definition of the ontology behind physics queer due to their pragmatic and near-sighted concept of physics (where physical objects are part of their object range, and not their universals / qualities / forms) in a non-grounded manner, I define here ontology for use in physics with the purpose of later elaboration of the various aspects brought forward in the definition.
The Ontology behind physics is (1) the rationally consequent science of the totality of physical existents, their parts, and their sine qua nons, namely, the pure universals (whereas “properties” are the conglomerations of universal qualities) as pertinents of existents and their parts, (2) prioritized as objects in terms of the To Be (Greek, Einai) of Reality-in-total and only thereafter in terms of the to be (einai) of its parts (reality-in-particular), (3) serving to achieve ever better measuremental approximations of the cosmos and its part-systems (4) in terms of the epistemological ideal of Reality-in-total, namely, the theoretically highest possible notion of Reality-in-general, (5) grounded in the unique and exhaustive implications of To Be, namely, Extension and Change, that are the absolutely necessary touchstones of observables and unobservables which exhaust the object range of physics, (6) in properly physical activities that let Reality and realities be measured in term of measuremental and classificational categories that facilitate both experiments and theories equally well.
I have merely used here the highest Ideals of philosophical and scientific thinking, namely, To Be, Reality-in-total, and Reality-in-general. These are not explained here well enough. I have treated them with detailed justifications in my books: Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, Frankfurt, 2015, and Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 2018, Berlin.
Hello, I am currently working on a research in teaching English as a Foreign Language. It focuses on the effect of deductive and inductive approach in enhancing pragmatic competence, namely using polite requests in English. I would like to use pre-test and post-test design. However, I struggle with finding sources to figure out how long there should be between conducting a pre-test and a post-test when the content of the intervention is "just" polite requesting.
Thank you for any answers and have a nice day!
Gravity has puzzled modern researchers in its inability to be incorporated into the unification models and in its lack of microscipic origin. I proposed a way to call this aim complete by discrediting gravity.
A solution might be to disgard it as force, a path taken by Einstein in GR in 4D.
However, few advanced this path. My idea is that gravity should be seem as a force by convetion, a pragmatically labeled as a force one because systems described by thevpresence of this phenomrnon or effect are equivalent to systems with real forces. This unification of forces is complete.
The New problem is to give rational or justification of this convention. If we stand with GR, we must give reasons the spacetime in presence of mass gives geodesic motion that resembles force-mediated motion in 3D.
There must be a category of phenomena that share many aspects of common force dynamic phenomena but are not genuine.
Also, there must be something unique with spacetime that generates these. Maybe at its macroscipic level some phenomena lead to this behavior, which is pseudodynamics.
I'm doing research about deixis/deictic and its meanings in pragmatic. I didn't find any journals, books or ppt about pragmatic meanings in deixis, most of it is explained in semantic way, not pragmatic. Are pragmatic meanings in deixis same like speech act classifications? Or we can use implicature theories to determine those pragmatics meanings?
How to determine pragmatic meaning in this dialogue example?
Mother: What do you want for Christmas?
Daughter: I want a violin!
Father: Didn't you want a doll? You said that one week ago.
Daughter: Now I want violin, papa!
If the deixis of that dialogue is you, does that pragmatic meaning is asking the daughter what she wants for Christmas? Or it is semantic means?
Thank you in advance.
The Influence of Parental Language Mode on the Relationship between Academic Performance and Disenchantment Rate of Middle School Students.
are there any theories of pragmatics and psychology to help with this topic.
Can anyone recommend some papers that can help me get a basic understanding of the research about English pragmatic teaching? Thanks a lot~
Wilson, Deidre and Dan Sperber (1995; 2004) suggest the Applied Pragmatics Theory while Pennycook (2001) develops the theory of Critical Applied Linguistics. I suggested the Critical Applied Pragmatics in my PhD thesis. Many scientists ask me about what it actually standsfor. I therefore, need more information about it, if any, beside my reference to both pragmatic knowledge use in solving discourse meaning problems and new pragmatic items identification and further appropriate theorization.
How can I find a topic that links grammar to literature or links grammar to language analysis, such as
1,Ellipsis in Literature "select text "
2,The Pragmatic Functions of Modal Verbs in Dostoevsky's " The Dream of a Ridiculous Man"
To do a graduation research ,as a student in the English Department.
Can you suggest topics for me .
with many thanks🌼
I am a graduate student at Arizona State University and I am taking an introductory class on research and evaluation in education. We have been asked to get input on the differences between research and evaluation, are they the same thing or do you think they are married in purpose and use? I am an elementary teacher and we are a data driven school. We use the evaluation process to research better options to meet the children on their learning field for maximum success. We also use evaluations to determine if scholars have reached the goals and mastered the information or standards we set. I think that we can take the evidence that is placed before us and use it to build the research data that will give us an idea of what we need to do with our scholars which will then lead to more evaluation. I don't believe they are the same, but they work hand in hand help us gather the evidence as part of both the evidence and the research. I realize that as I learn more I tend to lean towards a pragmatic approach to research. Although my personal definitions are evolving as I learn, I believe that research is the gathering and investigating of information where as evaluating is taking the research and drawing conclusions or using it to direct further research. Again, my own thoughts are growing and changing as I learn and study and your thoughts could add to my understanding, research and evaluation of the information.
I would like to hear from you about what you think is the difference or the same between research and evaluation. Also, what paradigm do you lean towards? Do you recommend any references for education research or evaluations?
Thank you for your thoughts and actions.
I am currently studying educational paradigms and I am interested in Pragmatic which seems to be the most helpful in EFL Research.
From an Axiology perspective, Pragmatic "gain knowledge in pursuit of desired ends"（Mertens ，2020，p.11).
I work in an English training school in China. Parents want every effort to be rewarded, but I, as a teacher, want students to learn useful learning skills and strategies. And those are essential to their success.
From an Ontology perspective, Pragmatic" asserts that there is a single reality and that all individuals have their own unique interpretation of reality"（Mertens ，2020，p.11).
Students are so different from each other and they are supposed to have unlike advantages in learning, Some are good at phonics, some are great at reading comprehension and some are skillful at writing. So we should respect and understand every one of them and provide proper help.
From a methodology perspective, Pragmatic "match methods to specific questions and purposes of research"（Mertens ，2020，p.11).
Now I want to work on research for a better teaching method for Chinese students.
I am planning to collect quantitative data, such as length of lessons, length of at-home-review, Star Reading grades before and after learning.
And also I am planning to collect qualitative data, such as students' class behavior, feedback to the learned knowledge, and feedback to the new knowledge.
But I don't think those data are enough for my research and I need more ideas, could you please share your ideas with me? What other data should I collect for my reseach?
Greetings, I am a student enrolled in a research class for Arizona State University, and we are discussing the topic of research and evaluation. For this discussion we are drawing from Mertens (2020) Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. While I believe there is a link and they overlap, research is how we find related tops and information, while evaluation is how we add validity. Mertens stated that research is knowing and understanding while evaluation is the applied inquiry process.
I think we use a mix method approach in our research, to see what may be factual and biased and what may be just theory.
Through different approaches, how can we still maintain the discipline of being objective while not falling into a biased opinion, where we only post, follow or research an opinion that we agree with? Out of the for theories, postpositivism, constructivism, transformative and pragmatic, which would be the most effective in being open and unbiased?
Thank you for your time
Mixed-methods researchers promote pragmatism as a paradigm by suggesting that it is directly linked to the needs of mixed-methods research. Scholars maintain that pragmatism provides a philosophical foundation for social science research, in general, and mixed-methods research, in particular (Morgan 2014a).
Many researchers still believe that mixed methodology should be done separately.
What is the take on the pragmatic approach where mixed methods adopt the use of both methods using one instrument/tool to collect data at the same time? This will either be QUANT+qual or QUAL+quant.
RG is an excellent platform for article publicity. But does it pragmatically work? How can we increase the visibility of our published manuscript?
The wastes produced at household level become a major problem. What could be the various possible ways to deal with such waste. Really, it is worsening the situation all around the surrounding.
Your reply is appreciated in advance.
I am about conducting a contrastive research study on the pragmatic competence of Yemeni EFL learners by comparing their responses in the speech act of gratitude to the ones made by English native speakers. My question is on the eligibility of using already-published-research data of the native speakers for my research as these native speakers are not reachable. If yes, can you suggest a criteria reference for this procedure?
The basic idea behind Systems Theory is, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.". This is a narrow idea and in our complex world with climate change, environmental degradation, and global inequalities. The pragmatic and positivist trend in the world was to oriented research towards explanations and causes, i.e. in-between of input and output, causes and effects. For no-system theoreticians, the idea is to observe systems as forms with enough inner complexity to reduce the external complexities by the means of selections that stabilized meaning. In this context, it is the self-observation of the form that has been investigated as a system. Once again why system theory is developed into a theory of self-organizing systems.
After reading Mertens' Introduction to Educational Research, I have a preliminary understanding of the four main research paradigms of research, which are post-positivism paradigm, constructivism paradigm, transformational paradigm and pragmatic paradigm. In the future, I plan to focus on the education direction of adult lifelong growth and learning. In this direction, I think the pragmatic paradigm will be more helpful to the education and research work I want to do. There are three reasons as follows:
#1 I focus on the growth and learning of adults, whose needs for growth and learning also change with the development of the times. The axiology of the pragmatic paradigm is that knowledge is acquired in the process of pursuing expected goals, and it is necessary to contact with multiple groups to obtain different understandings (Morgan 2007). This is suitable for the study of adult education in different Settings.
#2 The ontology of the pragmatic paradigm emphasizes the creation of knowledge through lines of action, pointing out that different people or groups can work together to complete "joint actions" or "projects". The emphasis is on the actual actions (" courses of action "), the beliefs behind those actions (" guaranteed claims "), and the possible consequences of different actions (" maneuverability ") (Morgan 2007). In my opinion, the personal growth and learning of growing people is the change of their beliefs or beliefs to action, and the positive feedback brought by the action promotes the occurrence of continuous learning. So at this point I also think that the pragmatic paradigm is more suitable for the direction of adult growth and learning.
#3 The epistemology of the pragmatic paradigm proposes that researchers need to interact with different members of society to understand problems in order to determine wise courses of action and determine the appropriateness of these actions, once implemented, to solve problems. The researchers did not position themselves as distant observers. Educational research on adult growth and learning requires interaction with group members, and researchers themselves are also part of the group, so they cannot be merely observers.
Mertens, D. M. (2020). Research and evaluation in education and psychology : Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods (5th edition). ISBN:9781544333762
#1 我关注的是成年人的自身成长学习，成年人本身成长学习的需要也是在时代的发展中也是变化的，实用主义范式的价值论是在追求预期目标的过程中获得知识，需要与多个群体接触，从而获得不同解度的理解（Morgan 2007）。这对于在不同环境下的成人成长教育的研究会很适合。
#2 实用主义范式的存在论强调通过行动路线创造知识，指出了不同的人或群体可以共同完成“联合行动”或“项目”。重点在于实际行为（“行动路线”）、这些行为背后的信念（“有保证的主张”）以及不同行为可能带来的后果（“可操作性”）（Morgan 2007）。在我看来，成长人的自身成长学习正是基本其信念或信念的改变，到有所行动，以及行动后带来的正向反馈促进持续学习的发生。所以在这一点上我也认为实用主义范式更适合用于成人自身成长学习的方向。
Mertens, D. M. (2020). Research and evaluation in education and psychology : Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods(第 5 版)赛奇出版社。ISBN:9781544333762
This is up to each party, and what it carries on its agenda is based on the ideas that this or that side carries.
In the 1980s Bealer wrote Quality and Concept which presented a type-free first-order approach
to intensional logic to compete with other higher-order, type-theoretic and modal approaches.
The presentation (both in the book and in a published article) is very sketchy (some non-trivial lemmas are merely stated) and the presentation is not easy to follow.
I was so impressed and intrigued by Bealer's philosophical arguments based on his system that I took it upon myself to clarify the presentation of his intensional logic and to furnish detailed proofs of the soundness and completeness results, which I hope might interest a larger audience. I wrote a paper containing this material which gives a general philosophical motivation and points out some open problems. I was interested in being sure of the correctness of these results before advancing to purely philosophical discussions on the advantage of this approach.
What would be a good journal to submit this paper to ?
In terms of conducting educational research or an evaluation, what are some examples of situations where there is a need for only a qualitative or only a quantitative approach to a topic instead of using both?
I am learning about the four research paradigms including constructivist, transformative, post positivist, and pragmatic. The pragmatic paradigm follows a hybrid model using quantitative and qualitative methods and doesn't have to prove a general truth. This seems to be the most flexible and generally applicable approach to me as someone who does not have any formal experience in educational research or evaluation.
I am an MA student working on pragmatics, specifically DCTs (discourse completion tasks). do you happen to know any books or articles on how to write and analyze DCTs? or is there any source for DCTs on different topics?
I'm beginning to think that this distinction is not as clear-cut as it has traditionally been taken for granted. Consider the following example: "She may like this one" (uttered by a friend who is helping you find a dress for your girlfriend). Many would say that this is a case of epistemic modality (no speaker's commitment to the truth of the modalized proposition). However, in this context, the utterance of "She may like this one" counts as a suggestion, this notion falling, in my view, within the domain of deontic modality.
I am looking at second language development for children through play activities. I can see a a lot of second language use through the child's monologue with herself while playing but need to find research on the subject.
When I was doing research on measuring integrated curriculum and extracurricular activity participation of Chinese students, mixed methods really inspired me and gave me great help.Now as a postgraduate freshman, I have to think deeply about pragmatic paradigm and other research paradigms.Welcome to discuss more recent studies together.Thank you.
The real world is constantly changing. Human beings' understanding of their own brains is still so superficial that they can hardly talk about the whole real world. I was struck by a passage: "These philosophers reject the scientific idea that social inquiry can reach truths about the real world by means of a single scientific method. "In the pragmatic paradigm, the outcome is all that matters, and the value of the outcome is judged by its validity, not by its consistency with some 'reality' in the real world. Pragmatism's emphasis on "believing one thing is different from another" is more convincing than other paradigms that emphasize the nature of reality and objective truth.
In my research, I have examined the impact of computer-mediated self-paced lessons on Turkish EFL learners' request modification. However, I am not sure what test I should run to see whether there is a statistically significant difference between the frequency counts of modifiers in pre-test and post-test. Moreover, I am not certain about how I can code the data. Do you think I should assign codes to each sub-category (e.g. playdown, politeness marker) or is it ok to type the frequency counts of internal and external modifiers in pre-test and post-test onto SPSS?
Asking for a friend:
I am a last-year Ph.D. student who is waiting for a doctoral defense session. I am going to continue my Postdoc in the area of pragmatics and language education. Do you have any idea about the existed opportunities? Thanks so much in advance
Several studies in general population have found a prevalence of 3 to 8% of advanced liver fibrosis in the context of NAFLD by means of noninvasive procedures. Diabetes prevalence has been increasing worldwide. It is one of the main risk factors for chronic liver disease and cirrhosis. Liver fibrosis is a strong predictor of mortality. In pragmatic terms do you think that all diabetic patients seen in consultation should be screened for liver fibrosis? If you agree which would be your strategy of study?
We are developing a test for ad-hoc (ad-hoc) and scalar implicatures (SI) and are showing 3 images (of similar nature) to the participants: image, image with 1 item, image with 2 items.
Eg. Plate with pasta, a plate with pasta and sauce, a plate with pasta, sauce and meatballs.
A question for an ad-hoc is: My pasta has meatballs, which is my pasta?
Q. for an SI is: My pasta has sauce or meatballs, which is my pasta? (pasta with sauce is the target item since we are testing pragmatic implicatures, where 'or' means 'not both'.
The item that causes many difficulties in making up questions is the image without any items, ie. plate with pasta. How do we phrase the question so that it elicits this image as a target response, without using too complex syntax?
Negation; "My plate has no sauce or meatballs", "My plate has only pasta, no sauce and no meatballs", seems like a complex structure to introduce as a counterbalance to the other type of items.
Has anyone tested something similar, without negation? We would be grateful for any kind of tips and hints.
I am doing a study on analyzing and interpreting the sociopragmatic features of approximately 350 Facebook posts shared by Kurdish speakers in Kurdistan Region, Iraq. For presenting the different pragmatic intentions or associative meanings behind Kurdish speakers’ posts, the collected corpus will be categorized into social, economic, political, health and religious topics, which will be translated into English for the purpose of study. Also, for assuring the seriousness and danger of COVID-19 among Kurdish speakers, a questionnaire of five questions has been created on www.forms.app and sent to 1185 participants via SNSs, namely Viber and Facebook messenger.
One of the goals of the scientific platforms, including Research Gate, is to help researchers to update their knowledge regarding the recent developments in research in their area of study. We can help new researchers by suggesting titles or topics for research and in this way we can promote spreading knowledge and it would be another way for connecting researchers all over the world. Moreover, some researchers may co-author some topics as well as brainstorm ideas in their areas. I'll start with some topics that might be interesting for some researchers in the field of "translation" and I expect others to contribute. Thanks a lot in advance for your contribution. And I think you will get lots of thanks from such researchers.
1.Metonymy as a pragmatic style for politeness in religious texts with reference to translation.
2. Naturalness in translation: advantages and disadvantages.
What did you mean by X?
How can we know what the speaker means without asking him/her? What are the criteria that help us know the intended meaning?
I have a question on a framing effect-like issue. Well, everyone of us has the immediate feeling that there's a huge difference between saying - for instance - "you should respect the environment" and "we should respect the environment", or also "the environment should be respected".
The difference might lie in how such sentences are interpreted by our minds and of course it affects the compliance to the described behavior (i.e., "respect the environment").
I'm convinced that I'm no genius and there must be a huge literature behind such an effect; but I'm not skilled in these themes, so I'm calling for help. Any clues?
P.S.: I know that nudge units and behavioral interventions teams in general promote the "make it personal" magic recipe to increase compliance, but I wonder where such strategies come from. I'm particularly interested in understanding the differences between "you should /we should", that is how grammatical phrasing (i.e., switching the person in the phrase) affects the interpretation and the relative compliance.
thanks in advance for any help
all the best,
I define the research philosophy for my research phenomenon that is the impact of the disruptive innovation in the hotel industry as epistemology. But, I'm not sure how to justify the rationale behind the approach to philosophy.
The research paradigm is pragmatic as I am studying travellers' behaviour and the market experts' conviction on the existing phenomenon using a mixed-methods approach.
so will it be called subjective? That's what I have understood so far.
Any advice or suggestions are welcome.
Consider the pragmatic research principle in gesturing the research process and its methods
Hi everyone. I'm actually doing a study on the teaching of sociolinguistic competence. I'd like to know what you think of research on the area of sociolinguistic competence. I noticed that more people focus specifically on speech acts. I understand that speech acts also falls under pragmatic competence. I have an opinion that maybe people prefer to do studies on speech acts (and not other aspects of sociolinguistic competence) because they are more easily measurable and observable. What do you think?
Based on pragmatic philosophy , I want to analyse internal conversations as a driver to engagement. I am using narrative inquiry as QUali method. And planning to use secondary data as Quanti due to time constraint which will be utilised in narrative analysis.
Can I independently interpret Quali and QUantitative and not go for comparison ?
I am dusting off my knowledge on adaptive control for my research. I came across with a concept that I did not quite get back then and is still elusive to me: persistence of excitation. After looking in many places, I always found the expression for the condition with the integral of the regressor matrix upper and lower bounded. However, I do not get the intuition of the meaning and why the persistence of excitation condition is formulated like that. Any comments on this will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
My thesis is about Miscommunication, confusion and impoliteness in second/foreign language classroom. For this research, I need to gather data from classroom interaction. Here are three questionnaires about interaction in the classroom of English/Spanish and Italian as FL/SL. Please could you share them with language students? Your cooperation is highly appreciated. For any question, please do not hesitate to contact me: email@example.com English: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdIQyN4ikkpIQ7eNM7il6vTxNP78SltxQlo4Z7SloQacGJNvw/viewform?usp=sf_link Spanish: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf9Ib2iPNXhgzDNgKriwbiODAXweLNAkyVv48Al_0sAIo0KoA/viewform?usp=sf_link Italian: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScRediqYPWzdV2Yj4WqUpGFUxDlZ1Yo6c_3Sq7kCVapXjsHZw/viewform?usp=sf_link
Acknowledge: Mugford, G. (2019). Addressing difficult situations in foreign-language learning : confusion, impoliteness, and hostility. New York, NY: Routledge.
My thesis is about Miscommunication in second/foreign language classroom.
For this research, I need to gather data from classroom interaction.
Here are three questionnaires about interaction in the classroom of English/Spanish and Italian as FL/SL. Please could you share them with language students? Your cooperation is highly appreciated. For any question, please do not hesitate to contact me: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Italian: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScRediqYPWzdV2Yj4WqUpGFUxDlZ1Yo6c_3Sq7kCVapXjsHZw/viewform?usp=sf_link Acknowledge: Mugford, G. (2019). Addressing difficult situations in foreign-language learning : confusion, impoliteness, and hostility. New York, NY: Routledge.
The whole PhD project will be conducted (in a palliative care context) in phases using a combination of questionnaires, interviews, focus groups and possibly reference groups along with analysis of conversations between clinicians and patients and an audit of patient records. I intend to use a pragmatic approach using both inductive and deductive analyses. The parts of the study may potentially stand alone, but better triangulated with a synthesis at the end. I keep going back and forth between calling this mixed methods and multi methods. I thought I nailed it when I called it multi-stage mixed methods!
Then I came across this little gem regarding case study research that was written in the same context as my study (palliative care):
"To understand the nature of case study research, it is useful to conceptualize it as an approach to research rather than a methodology in its own right. In other words, when considering the phenomenon of interest and the research questions it raises, the case study researcher selects the methodological position most suited to answer the particular research questions. The methods used in case study research are pragmatically – rather than paradigmatically – driven". Rosenberg, J. & Yates, P. (2007).
Using this logic, can I identify my study as using a pragmatic case study design, and not even touch upon qual/quant/multi/mixed method at all?
If so, are there any other references to substantiate this position?
When I try to review theories about word meaning within a broad-sense concept-related manner, I find that there are only few scholars who regard word meaning as concept, including Fodor, Bloom, Borg. In contrast, there are many who conceive word meaning not as concept but as conceptual schema or template, including most of Cognitive Linguists and Relevance Theorists.
Thus, I am wondering whether there are more scholars in "word meaning is concept" camp? Can Plato's Idealism be included, a seeming "label" view?
Actually, for every text to be translated there is a kind of translation that's very suitable for that text. For example, scientific texts should be semantically translated because the accuracy of meaning in such a case is of top priority.Literary Texts, on the other hand, can be communicatively managed. In other words, the meaning in this case is not of top priority but it goes hand in hand with the form which is very important too.
It could be added that political discourse is characterized by a lot of playing on words' meanings. In other words, politicians, in most situations, try to use certain words and expressions with opposite meanings. Such being the case, the pragmatic approach should be depended on when it comes to rendering political discourse.
I am currently designing an intervention (injury surveillance system) to be implemented within an organization. This research (following a pragmatic paradigm) will follow a multiphase mixed methods research consisting of QUAL -> QUANT -> QUAL.
The initial qualitative part will be conducted through interviews with the stakeholders of the organization in order to understand their perspectives with regards to the intervention; to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing the intervention and to design the intervention that best fits with the organizational needs.
My question is this: I am not sure which qualitative approach do I have to consider in this first part of the study. I am approaching this study from a pragmatic world view and hence I do not know whether this part requires a specific qualitative approach.
English Literature is a common discipline in the universities in South Asian countries. Quite often, the practitioners in the field and the learners as well are faced with an irritating question of 'relevance' of literature in general and English literature in particular in the shaping of national identity. Our query is does literature have a pragmatic impact on the national and societal lives of the people? Do the literature Depts contribute to the development of the nation and if yes, how?.
Today I learned about Alex Eskin, at U of Chicago, and his Magic Wand Theorem which was recently awarded $3 million in 2019 Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics. The results of this theorem are based on the work
The rewarded breakthrough theory claims that its results are of enormous importance for studying dynamical processes in the Universe, however, the theory is "not easy to explain". This is further discussed in
My question is, why have a geometric toy model to study dynamical processes, when you can have a real and simple dynamical model, known as the globotoroid, to address these processes?
It seems, Magic Wand Theorem is another example of hard to explain mathematical theory, which provides a "useful tool for physics". Can we be more real and pragmatic, or this is perhaps not academic enough? For instance, my recent
Incidentally, I also used the term "Magical Wand" im my 2015 YouTube video, https://youtu.be/gbPaG9AHZfg, where I show how to wrap growth data, in this case the market data, onto a spheroid. Interesting coincidence in the use of term.
“Emoción en la interacción digital: de los recursos lingüísticos a los emojis, memes y stickers”
Pedido de contribuciones
Envío de las propuestas: hasta el 15 de julio de 2019
Notificación de contribuciones aceptadas: 31 de octubre de 2019
La Revista de Estudios del Discurso Digital (REDD) invita a investigadores que trabajen en lengua española a enviar manuscritos para su segundo número, cuyo tema central es “Emoción en la interacción digital: de los recursos lingüísticos a los emojis, memes y stickers”. El objetivo de este número especial es atender a diferentes recursos y estrategias que los usuarios emplean para canalizar la expresividad en las interacciones digitales (escritas y orales). Desde los primeros recursos textuales que se emplearon (abreviaciones, mayúsculas y minúsculas alternadas y otras estrategias de escritura creativa) a los diferentes recursos multimodales que las interfaces ofrecieron, los usuarios han desarrollado un repertorio de estrategias pragmáticas para canalizar sus intenciones comunicativas.
En este número se priorizarán los trabajos de alta calidad que describan y analicen algunas de las siguientes temáticas en relación a una o más plataformas (redes sociales, correo electrónico, etc.) y/o tipos textuales (textos breves, chats, post/comentarios, mensajería instantánea, etc.):
1. Evolución diacrónica de los recursos expresivos.
2. Usos y funciones de emojis, memes, stickers, videos, etc. en la interacción digital.
3. Recursos expresivos en la interacción digital oral (videos, videollamadas, audios).
Los artículos podrán ser tanto reflexiones teóricas como análisis empírico de un conjunto de datos. En el caso de que utilicen corpus, estos deberán ser recolectados bajo protocolos éticos que salvaguarden la identidad de los interlocutores. Por otro lado, y dado que el principal interés de REDD es la lengua española, se valorarán los artículos que atiendan a la riqueza y variación inter e intralingüística del español empleado en las interacciones digitales. Asimismo, se invita a todos los interesados publicar en la revista a enviar propuestas para el segundo número de contenido general. El plazo de recepción de aportaciones para REDD se encuentra abierto durante todo el año.
Indicaciones para enviar manuscritos
Los manuscritos deberán ser enviados por vía electrónica mediante el Portal de Revistas UVa (Universidad de Valladolid, España), en la siguiente dirección: https://revistas.uva.es/index.php/redd.
Los artículos tendrán una extensión máxima de 15.000 palabras (incluyendo tablas, gráficos, ilustraciones y bibliografía) y respetar las normas editoriales de la revista. Se deberá enviar maquetado en la plantilla de REDD. Todos los textos que cumplan estos requisitos serán revisados por pares ciegos. La decisión de publicación será comunicada a los autores en un plazo máximo de tres meses.
Para informaciones adicionales, enviar un correo electrónico a email@example.com
What kind of model for a rural health care services can work in a low-middle income country? What are the common barriers and challenges to do so?
•My concern is that the quality of university education is in a deplorable state. For instance our university graduated can’t perform competently in the job market. It is also alleged they lack creativity in addressing work related challenges. Task; design, formulate, and execute a concrete, pragmatic approach that will offer a lasting solution to the problem of quality in university education. The solution you propose should be one that is comprehensive in nature, one that takes into account the interests of different shareholders.
I am looking for a syllabus/textbook that I can use to teach a new course on discourse and pragmatics, which can cover the following:
1) introducing the basics of pragmatic theory
2) introducing the basics of discourse analysis
3) covering corpus-driven analysis of discourse, preferably complemented by the use of some user-friendly free software for English discourse analysis
4) broadening into some other related discussions such as inferential/cognitive pragmatics, CDA, literary stylistics, CA and rhetoric, and possibly special DA for language documentation and archiving.
would very much like to hear about others' experience and suggestions
Can non-native English speakers ( who are of course applied linguists) rate appropriateness of EFL learners’ speech act production elicited through Role-plays and Discourse Completion Tasks (DCT)? Would it be acceptable in Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) research where recruiting native speaker raters could not be practical?
I'm in the midst of a concentrated period of marking the work of undergraduate Education students - around a 100 mainly on-line but some face-to-face students to feed back to. It's approximately 25 minutes per script to read, reflect upon, and gather a mix of encouraging and constructively critical thoughts - so I know that I am in for the long haul in terms of the time commitment to this task.
I take my teaching seriously - designing professionally valuable and purposeful tasks, creating clear rubrics and applying assessment for learning principles to assessment design (for example being clear about learning objectives, embedding peer assessment, and providing examples to students of what success looks like).
I also try to model the feedback and commenting processes in my marking that we are looking to encourage in prospective teachers. Most feedback runs to six or seven lines and conforms to the feedback sandwich structure - or 'Two Stars and a wish' in simpler parlance. I highlight a rubric to show where students have achieved the various assessment criteria. I try to provide a comment as to how to improve next time.
Some colleagues say that we are wasting our time in this endeavour and boast of their achievement in reducing marking time so that they can get on and spend more time devoted to their research. And there is evidence that most students pocket the mark that they receive, pay little attention to the comments on their work and move on to the next unit's assessment task.
I try to maintain a line of professionalism that feedback matters; helping students progress and think matters; and that therefore a commitment to the formative components of assessment is essential. But are my more pragmatic colleagues right? Am I becoming a dinosaur in my thinking about assessment ideals in a mass-production world of higher education? Back to the marking...another 50 to go!
Until today my analysis is based on kerbrat- orecchioni (from the poliphonic theory); Pragmatic theory of human communication, and conversation analysis
Ethics 101 (2005), John C. Maxwell holds that the Golden Rule should be accepted for:
1) being accepted by most people
2) is easy to understand
3) is a win-win philosophy (if held by others is good for you!)
4) is a way to run your life positively
5) therefore, should be accepted
Alternatively, the Golden Rule is pragmatic and cynical!
As governments continue to be the primary source of funding in public higher education, line functionaries at these institutions are not completely free to oppose the institutional agenda. In many instances, the national institutions align to national goals and objectives not always reflective on THE or Shanghai rankings. Public policy makers are now concern with impact on communities and the society, with relevance over esoterics and with pragmatic solutions to ordinary problems. Is there a growing dichotomy between these ideals by public officials and the institutions' line functionaries?
I am currently using the article titled 'The socioeconomic vulnerability index: A pragmatic approach for assessing climate change led risks–A case study in the south-western coastal Bangladesh' for a research proposal. However, i do not want to to use expert opinion in assigning weights to indicator, could anyone share views on this ?
I want to explore certain strategies higher education teachers use when talking with students and I'm considering using role-plays. Now, I don't know how many participants I should include in the role plays? How many role plays shall I make? I want my study to be fine statistically.