Pragmatics of English Speech Acts: Compliments Used by Macedonian Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the pragmatic knowledge and competence of the Macedonian learners of English, i.e. Macedonian high school English students’ views on and perceptions of pragmatics, their pragmatic competence in the speech act of complimenting, and the language learning strategies employed in the process of acquiring pragmatic knowledge.Although “student-oriented” and “evaluation-oriented”, the teaching methods currently used do not sufficiently develop students’ communicative competence in the process of English teaching and learning. Many students lack pragmatic knowledge of how to use the foreign language in specific settings and how to interpret certain utterances used by native speakers of the other language.Despite all the efforts made to improve the English language education in Macedonia, yet greater emphasis should be put on students’ linguistic and pragmatic competence in the English teaching and learning process. This area is the focus of the current study that analyses the English speech act of complimenting and its use by the Macedonian learners of English.
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 | 0.025 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".