Scenario type (social distance and power differential) did not appear to affect the overall number of nonverbal devices used¶

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? The number of overall attention-getting devices did not vary by scenario type, though device types varied, with head movements most common in –PD, –SD scenarios. → 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

Comparison of device totals across the four scenario types (+PD/+SD, –PD/+SD, +PD/–SD, –PD/–SD) in Table 5, which ranged from 46 to 52 tokens. Head movements were most common in the –PD, –SD scenarios (12 tokens).

"While the type of scenario did not appear to affect the number of overall attention-getting devices, the types of devices varied."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Facial expression was the most common nonverbal attention-getting device, and the open hand the most common hand gesture — related
• L1 and L2 speakers differed in types of nonverbal devices used, with no significant overall difference in use between groups — related
• Participants showed little metapragmatic awareness of their own nonverbal attention-getting devices in immediate recall — related
• Mobile-application TE-DCTs capture nonverbal attention-getters in the large majority of both L1 and L2 responses across all scenarios — related