Porównaj metody
Przeglądaj wybrane metody obok siebie; wiersze, które się różnią, są wyróżnione.
| Discourse Completion Task× | Matched-Guise Technique× | |
|---|---|---|
| Dziedzina | Językoznawstwo | Językoznawstwo |
| Rodzina | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Rok powstania≠ | 1989 | 1960 |
| Twórca≠ | Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper (CCSARP project) | Wallace Lambert and colleagues |
| Typ≠ | Written/oral elicitation instrument for speech-act data | Indirect experimental measure of language attitudes |
| Źródło pierwotne≠ | Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex Publishing. ISBN: 9780893915131 | Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 44–51. DOI ↗ |
| Inne nazwy | Discourse Completion Test, DCT, Production Questionnaire | Matched Guise Test, Matched-Guise Experiment, Language Attitude Matched Guise |
| Pokrewne≠ | 3 | 2 |
| Podsumowanie≠ | The discourse completion task (DCT) is an elicitation instrument widely used in pragmatics to gather data on how people perform speech acts such as requests, apologies, refusals, and compliments. Respondents read short descriptions of situations and write (or say) what they would utter in each, allowing researchers to collect comparable speech-act data across many speakers, languages, and cultures under controlled conditions. It was popularized by the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) of Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper in 1989. | The matched-guise technique is an indirect experimental method for measuring attitudes toward languages, dialects, and accents. Developed by Wallace Lambert and colleagues in 1960, it has the same bilingual or bidialectal speaker record the same passage in two or more language varieties ('guises'); listeners, believing they are hearing different speakers, rate each recording on personality and status traits. Because the voice, content, and delivery are held constant, any differences in the ratings can be attributed to listeners' attitudes toward the variety itself. |
| ScholarGateZbiór danych ↗ |
|
|