Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-cultural variation in written discourse has attracted less attention than similar variation in oral communication, although such studies are useful in quite a few areas of application, especially translation. The article intends to investigate tendencies in abstract writing between researchers from English-speaking countries and Greece. The data come from the Proceedings of the 9th World Congress of Applied Linguistics held at Thessaloniki-Halkidiki, Greece, in April 1990. Abstracts by Greek researchers are mostly written in English; it is assumed that internalized mother tongue preferences by Greek will be reflected in their writing in English. A sample of 100 abstracts is examined with respect to the authors' intentions in writing them and their attitude towards the readership. The frameworks assumed are B. Grosz and C. Sidner's theory of discourse structure (1985), P. Brown and S. Levinson's interactional model (1987) and B. Hatim and I. Mason's approach to translation (1990). The differences are of a pragmatic and communicative type: the two research groups differ in their preferences concerning the selection of discourse segments in the abstracts whereas their attitude towards the readership is described by a different positive/negative politeness pattern; no cultural group appears purely positively or negatively polite. Awareness of preferences in abstract writing facilitates both researchers and translators in achieving communicative and pragmatic equivalence in the target language.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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".