Politeness Strategies in Directive Speech Acts in Local Indonesian Parliament Assembly Proceedings
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 reports on politeness in directive speech acts appearing within the proceedings of the local parliament for Sukoharjo, Indonesia. The aim is to explain the politeness strategies used to convey intended persuasive forces during parliamentary discourses. Drawing upon the pragmatic qualitative approach, this study examined 18 parliamentarians and data on their previous utterances’ form, function, meaning, and context in the proceedings. Using data collected through observation, records, and documentation, it looks at how the politicians acted. The results show that directive acts represent the main performance, with 154 tokens of illocution and 44 directive speech acts for politeness. Politeness strategies to perform directive speech acts are colored with on record, positive politeness, and aversion-to-acting negative politeness. The characters for positive politeness include inviting-gentle-direct, repressing-gentle-direct, suggesting-gentle-indirect, repressing-gentle-indirect, gentle-indirect, and respecting direct. This study implies pragmatic analysis in a different setting where an emphasized degree of formality is required. Suggestions are made to compare or contrast with utterances in less formal interactions, such as in the negotiations between a buyer and seller, and in religious circumstances like sermons in a mosque, church, or colloquial proceedings.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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