Version 1
: Received: 28 April 2022 / Approved: 29 April 2022 / Online: 29 April 2022 (13:07:15 CEST)
Version 2
: Received: 7 March 2023 / Approved: 8 March 2023 / Online: 8 March 2023 (10:07:17 CET)
How to cite:
Hanegreefs, H.; Pluymaekers, M.; Hoefnagels, A. Linguistic Markers of Intercultural Competence in Student Blogs. Preprints2022, 2022040303. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202204.0303.v1.
Hanegreefs, H.; Pluymaekers, M.; Hoefnagels, A. Linguistic Markers of Intercultural Competence in Student Blogs. Preprints 2022, 2022040303. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202204.0303.v1.
Cite as:
Hanegreefs, H.; Pluymaekers, M.; Hoefnagels, A. Linguistic Markers of Intercultural Competence in Student Blogs. Preprints2022, 2022040303. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202204.0303.v1.
Hanegreefs, H.; Pluymaekers, M.; Hoefnagels, A. Linguistic Markers of Intercultural Competence in Student Blogs. Preprints 2022, 2022040303. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202204.0303.v1.
Abstract
This study combines insights from psycholinguistics and text analysis to identify linguistic markers of intercultural competence (ICC) in student blogs about intercultural experiences. By combining holistic ICC frameworks with a more analytical approach at text and word level, we were able to demonstrate that blogs with a high perceived level of ICC contain significantly more I-words, more insights words and less quantifiers. These markers of ICC constitute concrete cues for teachers when assessing reflective writing assignments and allow them to pinpoint concrete areas for improvement in their feedback and interaction with students.
Keywords
Blogging; intercultural competence; international learning outcomes; reflective writing; reflection; text analysis; text mining; psycholinguistics; linguistic markers
Subject
ARTS & HUMANITIES, Other
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.