scholarly journals Monitoring of Linguistic Action Perspective During Online Weekly Work Planning Meetings

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabián Retamal ◽  
Luis A. Salazar ◽  
Luis F. Alarcón ◽  
Paz Arroyo
2016 ◽  
Vol 164 ◽  
pp. 68-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farook Hamzeh ◽  
Emile Zankoul ◽  
Fatima El Sakka
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 66
Author(s):  
Sadhu Adwitya A ◽  
M. Agung Wibowo ◽  
Syafrudin Syafrudin

Two generally method / tools which used in project construction management system in Indonesia and the name are CPM (critical part method) or network planning and Bar Chart. The system used general method called conventional management system. Nowadays, was appeared one of a new system which seldom to applied in Indonesia, it is called LPS (last planner system). This research, researcher doing analyzed the differences between LPS and conventional management system. The result which obtained in this research are LPS dominated to accentuates team collaborative in the scheduling planning, resource allocation, control and enhance of work productivity, issue solved, regularly scheduling planning. Conventional management system more rely on the way CPM and Bar Chart working in that system with project manager decision. Planning of the schedule in this system doing by scheduling team. rescheduling in this system is not routine, it’s depend by construction progress. CPM and Bar Chart methods is influence on LPS. The both of methods was appeared in master scheduling, look a head scheduling, weekly work planning, shielding production, workable back log, percent plan completed and reliable promise process


1992 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 203-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Kasper

Throughout the short life of interlanguage pragmatics as a subdiscipline of second language research, it has been a virtually uncontested assumption that non-native speakers' comprehension and production of linguistic action is considerably influenced by their L1 pragmatic knowledge. The literature strongly supports this hypothesis. However, whereas there has been a lively controversy about the role of transfer in the traditional core areas of second language research (syntax, morphology, semantics), there has been little theoretical and methodological debate about transfer in interlanguage pragmatics. As a contribution to such a debate, this article seeks to clarify the concept of pragmatic transfer, proposing as a basic distinction Leech/Thomas' dichotomy of sociopragmatics versus pragmalinguistics and presenting evidence for transfer at both levels. Evidence for purported pragmatic universals in speech act realization and for positive and negative pragmatic transfer is discussed. Further issues to be addressed include the conditions for pragmatic transfer (transferability), the interaction of transfer with non-structural factors (proficiency, length of residence, context of acquisition), and the effect of transfer on communicative outcomes. The article concludes by briefly considering some problems of research method in studies of pragmatic transfer.


2005 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-73
Author(s):  
Wen-Hui Ou ◽  
Kathryn E. McGoldrick
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document