A Study of Pragmatic Transfer in Suggestion Strategies by Chinese Learners of English
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
This study investigates pragmatic transfer in suggestion strategies by Chinese learners of English. The subjects of the study include ten native English speakers, ten Chinese learners of English and ten native Chinese speakers. All of them are university students. The classification of suggestion strategies is mainly based on Hinkel’s study.The data is collected by means of a discourse completion test questionnaire. The Chi-square test is used to compare frequencies of the use of suggestion strategies by the native English group, by the Chinese learner of English group and by the native Chinese group. Results indicate that although all three groups use opting out suggestion strategies the most frequently and direct suggestion strategies the least frequently, the Chinese learner of English group displays direct suggestion strategies and hedged suggestion strategies more frequently than the native English group. Such pragmatic transfer is transferred from Chinese culture and teaching-induced errors respectively, which provides pedagogical implications for both language teachers and language learners. Key words: Interlanguage pragmatics; Pragmatic transfer; Suggestion strategy; Chinese learner of English
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 | 0.000 |
| 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