The Use of Textual Pragmatic Markers in the Speech of Jordanian University Students by adopting A Functional-Pragmatic approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at investigating the use of textual English pragmatic markers (PMs) as used by Jordanian university students by adopting a functional-pragmatic approach to explore the functions of these PMs. It also examines the effect of gender on the use of textual PM. Participants were 10 fourth year university students (5 males and 5 females) who study Translation at Isra Private University. Online interviews, storytelling activity and a short questionnaire have been used to elicit data from the participants. The data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively in light of the study’s research questions. The study revealed that the functions of textual markers are: marking contrast, elaborating, reformulating and exemplifying, showing temporal sequence, indicating an inferential or conclusive relationships and summaries, signaling shifts or transition of discourse and continuation of discourse, signaling the opening or closing of opening or closing of discourse. In relation to the use of textual PMs, the results showed that there were no significant differences among males and females.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".