Using stimulated recall to explore the use of communication strategies in English lingua franca interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, the communication strategy use of two pairs of English as a lingua franca (ELF) users was explored in relation to two contextual factors, the communicative goal and the ELF users’ thoughts and feelings about the interactions. The ELF users were video-recorded engaging in researcher-designed tasks which required sharing information to achieve a joint goal. Subsequent stimulated recall with individual speakers targeted instances of potential or actual difficulties in understanding. Recordings and transcripts of the paired tasks and stimulated recall were used to identify communication strategies used to address difficulties in understanding. Results showed that overall, 11 different strategy types were seen across both pairs of speakers. However, the pair which achieved the shared goal showed a different pattern of strategy use and of interaction than the pair which did not achieve the shared goal. The two pairs also differed in how they attributed responsibility for successful communication. These findings, discussed in the context of previous ELF communication strategy research, highlight benefits of investigating interlocutors’ contemporaneous thoughts and feelings and the ways in which communication strategies are used during interactions.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".