Pragmatische Spezifika der Kommunikation Von Russlanddeutschen in Sibirien. Entlehnung Von Diskursmarkern Und Modifikatoren Sowie Code-Switching
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Renate Blankenhorn. Pragmatische Spezifika der Kommunikation von Russlanddeutschen in Sibirien. Entlehnung von Diskursmarkern und Modifikatoren sowie Code-switching. Berliner Slawistische Arbeiten, Band 20. Eds. Wolfgang Gladrow, Barbara Kunzmann-Muller, Heinrich Olschowsky and Georg Witte. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2003. 263 pp.This monograph is one of the fruits of the blooming research on contact linguistics that I personally could have had good use for a year ago. Still, better now than never. The monograph was presented as a doctoral dissertation, and the author no doubt has more information in reserve. Research the world over is developing criteria for the classification of language contact phenomena, and, notably, those of code-switching seem to be in flux. Here, the author refers to the European rather than American approaches (e.g., fused lects of Peter Auer), leaving aside specific formal grammatical theories. This is justified by the title: pragmatic specifics of communication.The Russian Germans as speakers of a minority language are described on the basis of previous research as to their history, and the changing diglossic situation in Siberia at the moment sheds light on the focal factors of prestige, ethnicity, identity. What is notable in this case is that there is competition between a non-standardized German dialect and the all-encompassing standard Russian, and all the speakers are bilingual. The in-group speech form is, consequently, in a weak position (chapters 1-2).The corpus under study (chapter 3) consists of 48 hours of audiotaped interviews and group discussions taken either by the author or some representatives of the group. There are altogether 56 informants. The material was gathered in 1998 in Western Siberia, the Altai and Omsk areas to be specific. The first wave of the Germans in these areas arrived at the end of the nineteenth century from Ukraine and the European side of Russia, further waves came as deportees in the 20th century. Altogether the settlements were considerable, in the 1970s ca. 240,000 (p. 65). Although repatriation to Germany has been lively, there are still villages where German is spoken in private life.The material is heterogeneous, due to the unstable linguistic situation-individual competences vary along with the increasing weight of Russian. Even so, the author finds phenomena that are common to all the speakers (p. 69).There is much to learn about Russian discourse markers (chapter 4). The speakers seem to favour Russian particles, conjunctions, interjections, pronouns and adverbs in their German speech-a phenomenon that is common in other bilingual situations in Russia as well. And at least concerning particles and conjunctions, Russian is the source of borrowing in many minority languages surrounded by Russian, mainly due to the oral form of language contact. Here the author has at her disposal the well-covered ground of particle research in German and Russian, with Renate Rathmayr as a forerunner (although the French researchers of Russian particles seem to be missing in the bibliography). The classification is thus divided into discourse markers some of which are polyfunctional: opening particles a, nu, vidish', davajte, concluding particles vot, vsjo, net?, da?, verno?, utterance internal particles nu, vot, further connectors (various adversatives like a, no, vsjo ravno, coordinatives like i, ili, including adverbs like togda, potom, causals like potomu-chto, poetomu, metacommunicative markers znachit, skazhem, naprimer, voobshche. Fillers include vot, eto, tam, tak (an addition to the list in Shimchuk & Schur 1999). Reactive relatives include again nu, da, nu!, inenno, konechno, ladno, pozhalujsta, da?,, net, kuda tam, prichem tut, nu! (as a declining reaction), nu kak!, zdravstvuj!. Interjections are included in the discourse markers as well. On p. 123 the author presents a generalized list of the functions of the markers in discourse. …
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 découle