Participants showed little metapragmatic awareness of their own nonverbal attention-getting devices in immediate recall¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In spoken immediate-recall explanations, participants most often cited familiarity, formality, and politeness, but only one participant mentioned a nonverbal device. → Catherine Rockey 2020

Evidence¶

Catherine Rockey 2020¶

Catherine Rockey, Jessica Tiegs, and Julieta Fernández. (2020). Mobile Application Use in Technology-Enhanced DCTs. CALICO Journal. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.38773

q2 · i? · design · r2

Qualitative thematic analysis of immediate-recall recordings from 6 of the 13 participants (5 L2, 1 L1). Most frequent motivations were familiarity (39 mentions), formality (22), and politeness (11); only one participant mentioned waving, in four scenarios.

"participants did not appear to show awareness of their own use of nonverbal devices, or the role of these in the speech act of attention-getting in the immediate recall."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Facial expression was the most common nonverbal attention-getting device, and the open hand the most common hand gesture — related
• Scenario type (social distance and power differential) did not appear to affect the overall number of nonverbal devices used — related
• Mobile-application TE-DCTs capture nonverbal attention-getters in the large majority of both L1 and L2 responses across all scenarios — related
• L1 and L2 speakers differed in types of nonverbal devices used, with no significant overall difference in use between groups — related
• Immediately after the discussion, participants who explained did not recall more than participants who only listened — related