Dominant and Gender-Specific Tendencies in the Use of Discourse Markers: Insights from EFL Learners
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
This study followed two objectives: it primarily investigated the types of discourse markers (DMs) used in thespoken language of Iranian advanced EFL learners, and then explored the possible impact of gender on theparticipants’ use of DMs. To this end, 40 male and female EFL learners selected from an English language instituteparticipated in this study. The data were gathered through class observations. The researchers used Fraser’staxonomy of DMs and Fung’s category of interpersonal DMs as the theoretical framework of the study. To analyzethe data descriptive and inferential statistics were used. Results of the frequency test revealed that “and” was themost commonly used elaborative DM, whereas “but” was the most frequent contrastive DM. “Because” and “by theway” were respectively the only reason and topic-related DMs used by the participants, while “sure” was the mostfrequent interpersonal DM. In addition, results of the chi-square test revealed that learners significantly employedinterpersonal DMs more than the other sub-classes of DMs. Concerning the role of gender in the use of DMs, resultsdemonstrated that females significantly used more DMs compared with the males.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it