Cognitive and Discoursive Features of Speech Etiquette in Corporate Communication
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
Today, the cultural, community-driven and individual-specific facets of speech etiquette are discussed in terms of the functional aspects manifested in various types of communication, including corporate interaction. This article analyzes the main cognitive and discoursive characteristics of the British and American speech etiquette from the perspective of cultural, social and role stereotypes, gives a characteristic of the content structure of speech behavior in corporate communication in three main areas—information, evaluation, motivation—and identifies ways to form these values. In order to achieve this goal, the following tasks are to be solved: (1) to determine the functions of speech formulas and their influence on the speech etiquette of British and American businesspeople, and (2) to identify the most outstanding characteristics in the use of formulas of agreement or disagreement in British and American speech etiquette. The article reveals the conditionality of the choice of speech etiquette formulas in the socio-cultural aspect and argues that speech etiquette in corporate communication is characterized by specialized functions and their clear implementation, which is the key to successful communication. The authors conclude that the change of the communicative setting entails the transformation of the register, therefore, the use of other formulas of speech etiquette. Consequently, the transition from formality to individualization of formulas has appeared in the use of formulas of agreement or disagreement in speech etiquette. So, business partners choose formulas based on the appropriateness and acceptability of use in the current setting with a specific interlocutor.
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 | 0.081 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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