Speech Act of Condolence in Persian and English: A Cross-Cultural Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different speech acts such as apologies, refusals, compliments, complaints and invitations have been studied and differences between English and Persian have been shown. However, the speech act of condolence has been neglected and there is little written on the way Persian speakers express their condolences. Therefore, the first objective of the present study is to make a cross-cultural comparison in the realization patterns of the condolence speech act between English and Persian. The second aim is to investigate the effect of social distance on condoling strategies in different situations. A discourse completion test consisting of four situations was given to eighty Iranian EFL students of the University of Isfahan. The collected data was coded based on Elwood’s semantic formula (2004) with some modifications. The analysis of data revealed that offering of condolence by Iranians who are members of a Moslem community is carried out through strategies which are unique to this religious culture and is considerably different from what was found in the English data. Also, social distance has significant effect on the frequency of the speech act in different situations. Key words: Speech act; Condolence; Cross-cultural; Persian
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it