Correlation of Speech Acts and Language Functions in Top Notch Series vs. ILI Textbooks from a Pragmatic Point of View
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
The present paper is an attempt to evaluate the conversations of two currently used textbooks in Iranian context (Top Notch and ILI textbooks) on the basis of two frameworks of Halliday(1978) and Cohen(1996) to determine features of the books in general and the strengths and weaknesses of them, in particular. For this purpose, two levels (Basic& Intermediate) were selected and two pragmatic models of Halliday and Cohen were applied to analyze them. The researcher codified each speech acts and language functions in the conversations. The researcher concluded that the absence of one of the speech acts and language functions in the conversations of the two previously mentioned textbooks can be regarded as a weak point of these textbooks. The results showed that the conversations in the two textbooks have some pragmatic problems with regard to language functions and speech acts.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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