HONORIFIC TITLES IN BRITISH ENGLISH AND AMERICAN ENGLISH
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
Our modern, globalized world is developing along the path expanding the cooperation in economic, political, social and cultural life. The result of this interaction is the rapid growth of cultural exchanges and direct contacts between state institutions, social groups and individuals of different countries and cultures. The interrelation of language and culture plays an important role in communication both between the members of one group and with the representatives of other cultures. English is a global language and the term “English as an International Language” (EIL) corresponds to British English (BrE), American English (AmE), Canadian English (CanE), and Australian English (AusE). The present paper aims at showing differences between the usage of honorific titles in two varieties of the English language - American and British - relating to address forms used in everyday interaction and explaining the differences through social and interpersonal relations, cultural values and politeness strategies. The recent study of address forms is relevant as it helps us to find out speaker’s cultural peculiarities and to determine different usage of honorific titles in AmE and BrE. We draw on G. Hofstede’s Cultural dimensions (1991), Politeness theory (Brown and Levinson 1987, Hickey and Stewart 2005, Leech 2014), Intercultural pragmatics (Kecskes 2014, Wierzbicka 1991/2003). The data has been obtained through observation, questionnaires and interviews which contained a number of questions and situations, covering different social contexts: everyday communication with interlocutors of different age, sex and occupation. The study focuses on the main tendencies which illustrate the impact of culture on the usage of honorific titles in American English and British 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.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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