Canadian and Cameroonian English-Speaking University Students’ Compliment Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addressees compliment strategies in two regional varieties of English, namely Cameroon English and Canadian English. Data were collected through written Discourse Completion Tasks with 25 Canadian and 25 Cameroonian University students. The study examines similarities and differences between the two groups with regards to move structure and the head act strategies, the use of lexical and syntactic / stylistic devices and the use of supportive moves in six different situations. It was found that the Cameroonians show a very strong preference for single heads whereas the Canadians mostly favor multiple heads and that the Cameroonians use indirect compliments much more than the Canadians. The results reveal that the Canadians employ more lexical elements (adjectives, adverbs, verbs) than the Cameroonians. With regard to external modification of the core compliments, the findings suggest that the Canadians use much more supportive moves, i.e. pre-compliments and post-compliments, than the Cameroonians. Some differences were also found with regard to the situational distribution and types of internal and external modification devices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".