College ESL Learners’ Politeness in Using Linguistic Taboos and Euphemisms: Looking Through the Socio-Pragmatic Lens
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
Many researches have delved into politeness theory, but few have studied how politeness theory operates within the context of college ESL learners through the use of linguistic taboos and euphemisms. This paper determines the extent of students’ use of and their perceptions about linguistic taboos and euphemisms. It has made use of the sequential-explanatory design. Participants were 313 college ESL learners in a premier state university. Data were gathered by using a questionnaire, focus-group discussion technique, and actual recorded conversations of the informants. In terms of politeness, ESL learners always strive to keep their “positive face” intact. Students perceive that taboo words are bad, masculine, and immoral. Moreover, this study posits that, sometimes, uttering linguistic taboos becomes a way by which people can establish closeness with others. Hence, taboo words may be uttered once in a while depending on the context and setting, such as when interlocutors are friends or have established a short social distance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.117 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it