Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the polite requesting competence of 25 Korean learners of Indonesian. The data are compared to the requests produced by 25 Indonesian native speakers. Based on a questionnaire of politeness in three socially different situations, the Korean and Indonesian participants in this study were asked to make requests in the three situations. The situations were classified according to the three politeness systems on the basis of social relationship between speaker and addressee: hierarchy, deference, and solidarity. This study demonstrates that both groups tend to use the query preparatory strategy in making requests. However, due to cultural differences between Korea and Indonesia, the respondents in the two groups behave differently in terms of how they modify the head acts and how they use the politeness markers. In addition to that, this study also shows that in performing polite requests the Korean learners lack some pragmatic knowledge in applying the passive form di- and third person possessive pronoun –nya ‘him/her’ which are commonly used by Indonesian speakers to avoid the direct form you or your. Key words: Second language learning; Politeness; Request strategies
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".