Transforming Soccer Talk in the United States: The Misapplication of a Formulaic Announcing Methodology
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There are ideal strategies of thought for production of language. Such conscious linguistic strategies, or sets of beliefs about language structure, rationalize a particular--natural--approach to talking or writing about things, events, people, places, and so on. (1) Twenty-seven years on pitch have taught me how to think, therefore, talk, about soccer. Similar to 4-4-2--commonly considered classic formation--there exists a standard linguistic strategy, or ideology, for speech genre of soccer on television. Further, genre has particular characteristics: it is silent at times, fluid, poetic, passionate, and understated. Collectively these individual attributes contribute to whole of narrative. Major League Soccer (MLS) television commentary, however, is--unnaturally--structured a result of misapplication of a formulaic announcing methodology: cutting-and-pasting of two-commentator broadcast system. duality of this system is made up of play-by-play announcer and color commentator. Each role has a predefined linguistic function that, ultimately, shapes language each can produce. Furthermore, MLS commentators channel details and statistics, banter, coaching insights, and anecdotal information. My participant experience a player, coach, and fan does not necessarily qualify my native point of view that there is a tendency to mistreat soccer commentary on television in United States. Nor will I argue this idea is new or has not already been said before, but rather that this idea contextualizes what my ear has been witness to: a mistreatment of linguistic methodology for soccer commentary in MLS. Major League Soccer must continue to reexamine its language ideology. Indeed, there is an art to call of a match and some attention must be paid to it, for without this attention to linguistic detail, medium is mistreated and perception of sport becomes increasingly distorted. Certainly, speech genre of soccer commentary in United States has evolved simultaneously with growth of MLS over past fifteen seasons. (2) league has matured to sixteen teams with addition of three: Portland and Vancouver in 2011, Montreal in 2012. Although league has invested in cultivating U.S. National Team standouts (Brian McBride, Landon Donovan, Jozy Altidore), importing international superstars (David Beckham, Cuauhtemoc Blanco, Juan Pablo Angel), and building nine soccer-specific stadiums, there is room for growth when it comes to identifying studio talent with a tongue for speech genre. Soccer commentary in America continues to be held hostage by misapplication of formulaic announcing methodologies: treating soccer broadcasts in a similar fashion to other sports. In reality, each sport deserves their due approach. This synchronic trend to unnaturally mix broadcasting elements and apply linguistic techniques from various sports is a breech in contract of genre's standard Commenting on generic expectation of a genre's standard form, Mikhail Bakhtin notes, The speaker's speech will is manifested primarily in choice of a particular speech genre. ... And when speaker's speech plan with all of its individuality and subjectivity is applied and adapted to a chosen genre, it is shaped and developed within a certain generic form. (3) For native speakers, it is easy to pick up on violations of generic expectations for a particular speech genre. Because of this awareness of preexisting linguistic social facts (William Hanks treats genres as elements of linguistic habitus (4)), speaker is wise to take cues from a variety of factors to determine amount of which one can, Richard Bauman and Charles Briggs note, negotiate changes of genre in which features of one genre are embedded within a token of another. (5) Therefore, ethnography must focus on the total speech act and form-functioning-meaning interrelationships within situational context of language use. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,030 | 0,068 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,025 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».