Apologies in EFL: An Interlanguage Pragmatic Study on Moroccan Learners of 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
This study explores the strategies Moroccan Learners of English (MLEs), American English Speakers (AEs)), and Moroccan Arabic speakers (MAs) use when performing the speech act of apology. The study basically investigates the interlanguage of MLE as compared to other groups. Equally important, the aim is to study whether MLEs displayed pragmatic transfer when using apology strategies. To this end, A written discourse completion test/ task was administered to the participants both native and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in order to elicit apologies through five hypothetical situations. The productions of Moroccan EFL learners were analyzed to see where they stand between native speakers norms and Moroccan Arabic norms in terms of strategies choices. In the analysis of the data, all responses were categorized according to Trosborg’s (1995) apology speech act set. The results show that Learners of English in higher education significantly deviated the overall desired strategies as compared to American native speakers of English. Meanwhile, some developmental patterns towards native like norms were perceived.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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