Colloquial Russian 2 by Svetlana s> le Fleming Susan E. Kay (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
708 SEER, 82, 3, 2004 has become Slavonic on the strength of the many Slavonic features it has absorbedthroughimmigrationinto Israelof Slavonic-speakingJews. The volume under review seeksto present the cruciallinguisticfacts of the Rusyn dialects of Eastern Slovakia. It pinpoints not only the areas in which they are distinctfrom Ukrainian (whichremainsthe language fromwhich the independence of Rusyn is being pre-eminently declared in the common perception), but also the areas of overlapwith, or crucialdifferencefrom, the contiguous Slovak (and in part also Polish). Significantly,and wisely, it does not seek to take sides with either the view that Rusyn is a separatelanguage, or the view that Rusyns are reallyUkrainiansand theirlanguage a version of Ukrainian, replaceablefor literary,intellectualor administrativepurposesby Ukrainian. It constitutes, then, a purely descriptive basis, using largely authentic examples, and presented in a discursivetext, structuredin such a way as to be loosely comparableto the chapterlayout in Comrie and Corbett. Avoiding the political aspects of the problem of the Rusyn 'language in the making' (see Paul Robert Magocsi in SEER, 74, I996, pp. 683-86), it also contains no referenceto the earlierlinguisticallyrelevant,but extra-linguistic, especially theological, liturgical, history of the Rusyns (for which see, for example, Elaine Rusinko, 'Between Russia and Hungary: Foundations of Literature and National Identity in Subcarpathian Rus", SEER, 74, I996, pp. 422-44); such aspectswill remain relevantwhatever the final outcome of the status of Rusyn. While a formal 'declaration of independence' of the Rusyn literarylanguage was made on 27 January I995 (see Magocsi, A New SlavicLanguage, p. x-xi), it is by no means obvious that the new statusof the language will achieve universalacceptance, or that one day a general Rusyn, for use in Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, former Yugoslavia and the USA and Canada will develop, as hoped by the promoters of its current level of independence. Given the obvious topicality of what might be called 'the Rusyn (or Ruthenian) problem' in the late twentieth century, the availability of a material base in English such as what Vafiko's book represents is a welcome asset. School ofSlavonic andEastEuropean Studies DAVID SHORT University College London le Fleming, Svetlana and Kay, Susan E. Colloquial Russian2. Routledge, London andNew York,2003. viii + 344 pp. Illustrations.Tables.Indexes. Cassettes.CDs. f24.46. A teacher of English as a foreign language is spoilt for choice as far as textbooksareconcerned. Imaginative,well-designedand up-to-datematerials exist to teach and test every aspect of linguistic competence. A teacher of Russian as a foreignlanguage is not so lucky.Russiantextbooksarelimited in range and aim mainly at the beginner/intermediate level. The reasons are obvious: the EFL market is ever-expanding, the demand for Russian is apparentlyshrinking.Publishersare reluctant to invest, and if they do, they want to net the whole market. Consequently, every eagerly REVIEWS 709 awaited new Russian language book aims at too wide an audience and leads to disappointment. Publishers'lack of interest is not insuperable. Since textbooks have to aim at a general audience they could use material diverse enough to offer something to a variety of users. The excellent EFL methodology is now used in the teaching of French,Spanish,Italianand othermajorforeignlanguages. Russian stilllagsbehind in thisrespect. Le Fleming and Kay's Colloquial Russian 2 is anothercase where opportunities are missed.This book follows Colloquial Russiani (an ab-initio course)and is accompanied by two CDs or audiotapes. The introductory revision unit is followed by fourteenunitseach containing a dialogue and a text adaptedfrom a magazine or a newspaperarticle,grammarexplanationsand exercises.The materialis well presented;grammarexplanations are clear, and each point is followed by an exercise. The authors say in the introductorypage that they 'provideinterestinginformationabout Russia at the same time as introducing new vocabulary and language points'. The texts come from recent issues of reputablepublicationssuch as Itogi,1Nezavisimaya Gazeta and Moskovskie Novosti, but it is surprisinghow dated some alreadysound. Since Russiais stillin rapid transition, this cannot be helped. But the editing of the material and the somniferouslyslow,ifclear,recordingoftextsanddialoguesmaketheproblem worse. Textbooks are mostlyjudged by their methodology; perhaps they should also be judged as exercises in mythologizing. Textbook authors, native speakersor foreign specialists,constructUtopian realitiesand avoid anything negative. Once my own students, asked after a spell in Russia what they had missed in their...
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,044 | 0,034 |
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 ».