Abstract It is considered a huge socio-political step for a country to change its name, especially under pressure imposed by another country. In January 2019, Macedonia officially became the Republic of North Macedonia after a three-decade long dispute with its neighbouring country Greece. Macedonian citizens have long suffered the consequences of this dispute and have often expressed their dissatisfaction on the social media. However, the media played a crucial role in shaping their opinions regarding this situation. This paper attempts to present how pro- and anti-government oriented media sources framed the issue and influenced the citizens’ perceptions of it. More precisely, it conducts a critical discourse analysis of 30 online newspaper articles, written during three specific periods on a timeline from January 2018 to February 2019, before, during and after the name change. The analysis sets out to identify lexical, pragmatic and discursive devices acting as potential fear triggers through which threat frames are being constructed. The results showed that both pro- and anti- government media sources appeal mostly to people’s emotions by generating fear related to a hypothetical future – in the case of the former it instigated fear of what might happen with the future of the country provided the name was not changed, while in the case of the latter, if the name was changed.
{"title":"Media framing of the Macedonia name change issue: The use of fear-inducing language strategies","authors":"Zorica Trajkova","doi":"10.1515/lpp-2020-0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2020-0012","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is considered a huge socio-political step for a country to change its name, especially under pressure imposed by another country. In January 2019, Macedonia officially became the Republic of North Macedonia after a three-decade long dispute with its neighbouring country Greece. Macedonian citizens have long suffered the consequences of this dispute and have often expressed their dissatisfaction on the social media. However, the media played a crucial role in shaping their opinions regarding this situation. This paper attempts to present how pro- and anti-government oriented media sources framed the issue and influenced the citizens’ perceptions of it. More precisely, it conducts a critical discourse analysis of 30 online newspaper articles, written during three specific periods on a timeline from January 2018 to February 2019, before, during and after the name change. The analysis sets out to identify lexical, pragmatic and discursive devices acting as potential fear triggers through which threat frames are being constructed. The results showed that both pro- and anti- government media sources appeal mostly to people’s emotions by generating fear related to a hypothetical future – in the case of the former it instigated fear of what might happen with the future of the country provided the name was not changed, while in the case of the latter, if the name was changed.","PeriodicalId":39423,"journal":{"name":"Lodz Papers in Pragmatics","volume":"16 1","pages":"265 - 284"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/lpp-2020-0012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44701729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Workplace politeness concerns the structural, interactional and individual level. Using the example of mobbing, it is illustrated how small acts of impoliteness can lead to the destruction a person psychologically and physically. Particularly, so-called downward mobbing is an increasing problem worldwide; most of the cases are orchestrated by superiors, the people subordinates depend on the most. Data clearly illustrate the social toxin created by up to 45 seemingly small actions in five areas of work life. These actions result in health hazards and ultimately loss of jobs. By example of workplace harassment, it is illustrated how systematic acts of impoliteness are used to manipulate a person's emotion and identity, to ensure anxiety-born solidarity in others while abusing power, with high costs for the target, the organisation, and society. The discussion gives way to considerations about intercultural cooperation at the workplace, showing similarities between subtle devaluations in intercultural communication called microaggression and what has been discussed as mobbing. Overall, impoliteness is deconstructed as a sign of degrading social bonds, security and health, thereby raising awareness of the importance of intercultural interaction without microaggression. The practical value of linguistic impoliteness research and its connection to work psychology becomes apparent.
{"title":"Deconstructing impoliteness in professional discourse: The social psychology of workplace mobbing. A cross-disciplinary contribution with conclusions for the intercultural workplace","authors":"Sylke Meyerhuber","doi":"10.1515/lpp-2020-0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2020-0011","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Workplace politeness concerns the structural, interactional and individual level. Using the example of mobbing, it is illustrated how small acts of impoliteness can lead to the destruction a person psychologically and physically. Particularly, so-called downward mobbing is an increasing problem worldwide; most of the cases are orchestrated by superiors, the people subordinates depend on the most. Data clearly illustrate the social toxin created by up to 45 seemingly small actions in five areas of work life. These actions result in health hazards and ultimately loss of jobs. By example of workplace harassment, it is illustrated how systematic acts of impoliteness are used to manipulate a person's emotion and identity, to ensure anxiety-born solidarity in others while abusing power, with high costs for the target, the organisation, and society. The discussion gives way to considerations about intercultural cooperation at the workplace, showing similarities between subtle devaluations in intercultural communication called microaggression and what has been discussed as mobbing. Overall, impoliteness is deconstructed as a sign of degrading social bonds, security and health, thereby raising awareness of the importance of intercultural interaction without microaggression. The practical value of linguistic impoliteness research and its connection to work psychology becomes apparent.","PeriodicalId":39423,"journal":{"name":"Lodz Papers in Pragmatics","volume":"16 1","pages":"235 - 264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/lpp-2020-0011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42471902","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The assessment of pragmatic skills in a foreign or second language (L2) is usually investigated with regard to language learners, but rarely with regard to non-native language instructors, who are simultaneously teachers and (advanced) learners of the L2. With regard to English as the target language, this is a true research gap, as nonnative English-speaking teachers (non-NESTs) constitute the majority of English teachers world-wide (Kamhi-Stein 2016). Addressing this research gap, this paper presents a modified replication of Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s (1998) renowned study on grammatical vs. pragmatic awareness, carried out with non-NEST candidates. While the original study asked the participants for a global indication of (in)appropriateness/ (in)correctness and to rate its severity, the participants in the present study were asked to identify the nature of the violation and to suggest a repair. Inspired by Pfingsthorn and Flöck (2017), the data was analyzed by means of Signal Detection Theory with regard to Hits, Misses, False Alarms and Correct Rejections to gain more detailed insights into the participants’ metalinguistic perceptions. In addition, the study investigated the rate of successful repairs, showing that correct problem identification cannot necessarily be equated with adequate repair abilities. Implications for research, language teaching and language teacher education are derived.
{"title":"Assessing the L2 pragmatic awareness of non-native EFL teacher candidates: Is spotting a problem enough?","authors":"Karen Glaser","doi":"10.1515/lpp-2020-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2020-0003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The assessment of pragmatic skills in a foreign or second language (L2) is usually investigated with regard to language learners, but rarely with regard to non-native language instructors, who are simultaneously teachers and (advanced) learners of the L2. With regard to English as the target language, this is a true research gap, as nonnative English-speaking teachers (non-NESTs) constitute the majority of English teachers world-wide (Kamhi-Stein 2016). Addressing this research gap, this paper presents a modified replication of Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s (1998) renowned study on grammatical vs. pragmatic awareness, carried out with non-NEST candidates. While the original study asked the participants for a global indication of (in)appropriateness/ (in)correctness and to rate its severity, the participants in the present study were asked to identify the nature of the violation and to suggest a repair. Inspired by Pfingsthorn and Flöck (2017), the data was analyzed by means of Signal Detection Theory with regard to Hits, Misses, False Alarms and Correct Rejections to gain more detailed insights into the participants’ metalinguistic perceptions. In addition, the study investigated the rate of successful repairs, showing that correct problem identification cannot necessarily be equated with adequate repair abilities. Implications for research, language teaching and language teacher education are derived.","PeriodicalId":39423,"journal":{"name":"Lodz Papers in Pragmatics","volume":"16 1","pages":"33 - 65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/lpp-2020-0003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41689389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessment can be defined as expressing a value judgement on something/someone, that is, as explicitly indicating where a given person/thing stands in terms of their intrinsic and/or perceived qualities. It is a multi-faceted phenomenon not only because it may focus on the emotional reaction that the object of assessment may determine, the properties it displays as a member of a given category, and/or its social-normative adequacy and appropriacy in a given context,2 but also because it is an act of reflection and communication, combining a careful consideration of the object of assessment and the expression of the opinion formed and attitude developed as a result of that careful examination (Hunston 1994: 191). Assessment is also a practice that affects interpersonal relationships. Since it consists in taking a favourable or unfavourable stand on what is being assessed, and thus conveying a positive or negative description of it, it may, respectively, enhance or threaten the positive face of the person whose behaviour or work is being assessed. Finally, assessment may impact the scope of action of the recipient of assessment. That is, positive assessment may entitle them to a given right and/or encourage them to take a future course of action, while negative assessment may involve depriving them of that right or discourage them from embarking on a given plan. Therefore the outcome of assessment has implications for their negative face too.
{"title":"Assessing pragmatic aspects of L2 communication: Why, how and what for","authors":"S. Gesuato, Erik Castello","doi":"10.1515/lpp-2020-0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2020-0001","url":null,"abstract":"Assessment can be defined as expressing a value judgement on something/someone, that is, as explicitly indicating where a given person/thing stands in terms of their intrinsic and/or perceived qualities. It is a multi-faceted phenomenon not only because it may focus on the emotional reaction that the object of assessment may determine, the properties it displays as a member of a given category, and/or its social-normative adequacy and appropriacy in a given context,2 but also because it is an act of reflection and communication, combining a careful consideration of the object of assessment and the expression of the opinion formed and attitude developed as a result of that careful examination (Hunston 1994: 191). Assessment is also a practice that affects interpersonal relationships. Since it consists in taking a favourable or unfavourable stand on what is being assessed, and thus conveying a positive or negative description of it, it may, respectively, enhance or threaten the positive face of the person whose behaviour or work is being assessed. Finally, assessment may impact the scope of action of the recipient of assessment. That is, positive assessment may entitle them to a given right and/or encourage them to take a future course of action, while negative assessment may involve depriving them of that right or discourage them from embarking on a given plan. Therefore the outcome of assessment has implications for their negative face too.","PeriodicalId":39423,"journal":{"name":"Lodz Papers in Pragmatics","volume":"16 1","pages":"1 - 13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/lpp-2020-0001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43247110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sunni L. Sonnenburg-Winkler, Zohreh R. Eslami, Ali Derakhshan
Abstract The present study investigates variability among raters from different linguistic backgrounds, who evaluated the pragmatic performance of English language learners with varying native languages (L1s) by using both self- and peer-assessments. To this end, written discourse completion task (WDCT) samples of requesting speech acts from 10 participants were collected. Thereafter, the participants were asked to assess their peers’ WDCTs before assessing their own samples using the same rating scale. The raters were further asked to provide an explanation for their rating decisions. Findings indicate that there may indeed be a link between a rater’s language background and their scoring patterns, although the results regarding peer- and self-assessment are mixed. There are both similarities and differences in the participants’ use of pragmatic norms and social rules in evaluating appropriateness.
{"title":"Rater variation in pragmatic assessment: The impact of the linguistic background on peer-assessment and self-assessment","authors":"Sunni L. Sonnenburg-Winkler, Zohreh R. Eslami, Ali Derakhshan","doi":"10.1515/lpp-2020-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2020-0004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The present study investigates variability among raters from different linguistic backgrounds, who evaluated the pragmatic performance of English language learners with varying native languages (L1s) by using both self- and peer-assessments. To this end, written discourse completion task (WDCT) samples of requesting speech acts from 10 participants were collected. Thereafter, the participants were asked to assess their peers’ WDCTs before assessing their own samples using the same rating scale. The raters were further asked to provide an explanation for their rating decisions. Findings indicate that there may indeed be a link between a rater’s language background and their scoring patterns, although the results regarding peer- and self-assessment are mixed. There are both similarities and differences in the participants’ use of pragmatic norms and social rules in evaluating appropriateness.","PeriodicalId":39423,"journal":{"name":"Lodz Papers in Pragmatics","volume":"16 1","pages":"67 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/lpp-2020-0004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41852368","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper highlights areas of concern in the assessment of pragmatics, with the intent of stimulating fresh thinking about the assessment of pragmatics both for research purposes and as a part of classroom instruction. It starts by considering what aspects of ability in pragmatics to assess, and then contrasts the trade-off between the feasibility of obtaining data and the ultimate importance of the data. Next, the conspicuous lack of assessment of ability in L2 pragmatics in language classes is noted. Then follow sections on topics all relating primarily to the assessment of pragmatics for research purposes – the use of mixed methods, data elicitation procedures, and norms used in determining the appropriateness of any given performance in pragmatics. The last two topics deal, respectively, with the perceived relevance of the given assessment by the learners and with the value of collecting verbal report data from the respondents as a means for validating the assessment measures. Finally, considerations regarding the most prominent of these issues are provided.
{"title":"Issues in the assessment of L2 pragmatics","authors":"A. Cohen","doi":"10.1515/lpp-2020-0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2020-0002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper highlights areas of concern in the assessment of pragmatics, with the intent of stimulating fresh thinking about the assessment of pragmatics both for research purposes and as a part of classroom instruction. It starts by considering what aspects of ability in pragmatics to assess, and then contrasts the trade-off between the feasibility of obtaining data and the ultimate importance of the data. Next, the conspicuous lack of assessment of ability in L2 pragmatics in language classes is noted. Then follow sections on topics all relating primarily to the assessment of pragmatics for research purposes – the use of mixed methods, data elicitation procedures, and norms used in determining the appropriateness of any given performance in pragmatics. The last two topics deal, respectively, with the perceived relevance of the given assessment by the learners and with the value of collecting verbal report data from the respondents as a means for validating the assessment measures. Finally, considerations regarding the most prominent of these issues are provided.","PeriodicalId":39423,"journal":{"name":"Lodz Papers in Pragmatics","volume":"16 1","pages":"15 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/lpp-2020-0002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47180821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The study of pragmatic competence has gained increasing importance within second language assessment over the last three decades. However, its study in L2 language testing is still scarce. The aim of this paper is to research the extent to which pragmatic competence as defined by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has been accommodated in the task descriptions and rating scales of two of the most popular Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPIs) at a C1 level: Cambridge’s Certificate in Advanced English (CAE) and Trinity’s Integrated Skills in English (ISE) III. To carry out this research, OPI tests are first defined, highlighting their differences from L2 pragmatic tests. After pragmatic competence in the CEFR is examined, focusing on the updates in the new descriptors, CAE and ISE III formats, structure and task characteristics are compared, showing that, while the formats and some characteristics are found to differ, the structures and task types are comparable. Finally, we systematically analyse CEFR pragmatic competence in the task skills and rating scale descriptors of both OPIs. The findings show that the task descriptions incorporate mostly aspects of discourse and design competence. Additionally, we find that each OPI is seen to prioritise different aspects of pragmatic competence within their rating scale, with CAE focusing mostly on discourse competence and fluency, and ISE III on functional competence. Our study shows that the tests fail to fully accommodate all aspects of pragmatic competence in the task skills and rating scales, although the aspects they do incorporate follow the CEFR descriptors on pragmatic competence. It also reveals a mismatch between the task competences being tested and the rating scale. To conclude, some research lines are proposed.
{"title":"Assessing pragmatic competence in oral proficiency interviews at the C1 level with the new CEFR descriptors","authors":"Bárbara Eizaga-Rebollar, Cristina Heras-Ramírez","doi":"10.1515/lpp-2020-0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2020-0005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The study of pragmatic competence has gained increasing importance within second language assessment over the last three decades. However, its study in L2 language testing is still scarce. The aim of this paper is to research the extent to which pragmatic competence as defined by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has been accommodated in the task descriptions and rating scales of two of the most popular Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPIs) at a C1 level: Cambridge’s Certificate in Advanced English (CAE) and Trinity’s Integrated Skills in English (ISE) III. To carry out this research, OPI tests are first defined, highlighting their differences from L2 pragmatic tests. After pragmatic competence in the CEFR is examined, focusing on the updates in the new descriptors, CAE and ISE III formats, structure and task characteristics are compared, showing that, while the formats and some characteristics are found to differ, the structures and task types are comparable. Finally, we systematically analyse CEFR pragmatic competence in the task skills and rating scale descriptors of both OPIs. The findings show that the task descriptions incorporate mostly aspects of discourse and design competence. Additionally, we find that each OPI is seen to prioritise different aspects of pragmatic competence within their rating scale, with CAE focusing mostly on discourse competence and fluency, and ISE III on functional competence. Our study shows that the tests fail to fully accommodate all aspects of pragmatic competence in the task skills and rating scales, although the aspects they do incorporate follow the CEFR descriptors on pragmatic competence. It also reveals a mismatch between the task competences being tested and the rating scale. To conclude, some research lines are proposed.","PeriodicalId":39423,"journal":{"name":"Lodz Papers in Pragmatics","volume":"16 1","pages":"87 - 121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/lpp-2020-0005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43146326","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This qualitative classroom study investigated the development of pragmatic competence in academic discussions through content analysis of student reflective writing. The aims of the study were: to understand the greatest challenges that students faced during the learning process, the causes of those challenges, and the most successful strategies that students employed to overcome the challenges. In addition, the analysis investigated other significant themes in the reflective writing that related to the students’ experiences in developing their pragmatic competence in discussions. Five advanced English for Academic Purposes (EAP) students at a Sino-US institution in China participated over the course of a semester. Results showed that common challenges included: hesitation resulting in missed opportunities to speak, lack of clarity when speaking, inability to repair communication breakdowns, and difficulty with listening comprehension. Self-reflection allowed the learners to understand the various reasons for the challenges they faced and to develop appropriate pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic strategies for coping with them. It also enabled the instructor to make suggestions suited to learners’ specific needs. In addition to revealing specific challenges, causes, and strategies that students employed, themes that emerged through content analysis included the impact of students’ emotional lives on their learning and performance, as well as the value of authentic communication in the development of pragmatic competence for academic discussions. This exploratory classroom investigation provides suggestions for teaching pragmatic competence in academic discussions and for additional classroom explorations that empower learners to develop autonomy.
{"title":"Developing Pragmatic Competence in English Academic Discussions: An EAP Classroom Investigation","authors":"Marcella Caprario","doi":"10.1515/lpp-2020-0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2020-0006","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This qualitative classroom study investigated the development of pragmatic competence in academic discussions through content analysis of student reflective writing. The aims of the study were: to understand the greatest challenges that students faced during the learning process, the causes of those challenges, and the most successful strategies that students employed to overcome the challenges. In addition, the analysis investigated other significant themes in the reflective writing that related to the students’ experiences in developing their pragmatic competence in discussions. Five advanced English for Academic Purposes (EAP) students at a Sino-US institution in China participated over the course of a semester. Results showed that common challenges included: hesitation resulting in missed opportunities to speak, lack of clarity when speaking, inability to repair communication breakdowns, and difficulty with listening comprehension. Self-reflection allowed the learners to understand the various reasons for the challenges they faced and to develop appropriate pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic strategies for coping with them. It also enabled the instructor to make suggestions suited to learners’ specific needs. In addition to revealing specific challenges, causes, and strategies that students employed, themes that emerged through content analysis included the impact of students’ emotional lives on their learning and performance, as well as the value of authentic communication in the development of pragmatic competence for academic discussions. This exploratory classroom investigation provides suggestions for teaching pragmatic competence in academic discussions and for additional classroom explorations that empower learners to develop autonomy.","PeriodicalId":39423,"journal":{"name":"Lodz Papers in Pragmatics","volume":"16 1","pages":"123 - 152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/lpp-2020-0006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47430239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：