EFL Learners' Perceptions of (In)formality: Address Forms in Interaction with Other (In)formal Register Markers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perception and production of stylistic variation is an important aspect of sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence. Whereas most research has focused on the production of (in)formal variants by native speakers, this study compares perceptions of formality by English-dominant (ED) speakers and advanced English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners measured on a 5-point Likert scale for 20 examples of e-mail workplace communications in which (in)formal greetings, address forms, and vocabulary are variously combined as three register markers. Participants also reported how certain they felt about their formality ratings on a 4-point Likert scale, and identified features that they considered significant in their perceptions of formality. Statistically significant differences between the two participant groups emerged in 11 of the formality and 12 of the certainty ratings. A trend which needs to be substantiated by further research was observed suggesting that the EFL learners found address forms more and vocabulary less salient than the ED speakers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".