Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Historical and sociolinguistic backgroundThe roots of the language known by its speakers as Deitsch, in English either Pennsylvania Dutch or Pennsylvania German, extend back to 18th-century Pennsylvania.Between 1710 and 1770, some 81,000 German-speaking migrants from mainly the Palatinate and adjacent regions in southwestern Germany, as well as smaller numbers from Alsace and Switzerland, arrived in America through the port of Philadelphia (Wokeck 1999).Most were farmers and craftspeople who settled in rural southeastern and south-central Pennsylvania, an area that still today is known as the Pennsylvania Dutch Country.Already by 1800, Pennsylvania Dutch-speakers began forming secondary settlements in western Pennsylvania (e.g., Somerset County) and further west, especially Ohio, and north into Southern Ontario in what was then known as Upper Canada.Other Pennsylvania Dutch speakers migrated southward along the eastern edge of the Appalachian Mountains establishing communities in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.Precise information on exactly where the original German-speaking immigrants to colonial Pennsylvania originated is lacking, but on the basis of passenger lists for the ships on which they traveled we have a good sense of approximately how many people came and in which years thanks to a 1999 study by the historian Marianne Wokeck.According to Wokeck (1999: 144-46), approximately two-thirds of the Pennsylvania Dutch founder population arrived in Pennsylvania before 1755, with a peak occurring between 1749 and 1755.After 1755, migration from German-speaking Europe declined dramatically and all but ceased with the onset of the American Revolution.Although in many cases we do not know the specific communities in Central Europe from which German-speaking migrants to colonial 'we marry'; Meil [mɛ:ɬ] 'mile'.Conversely, in Midwestern Pennsylvania Dutch [aɪ] is retained before unstressed central [ə, ɐ], e.g., mir heiere [mi:ɐ haɪəɾə] 'we marry'; ich heier [ʔɪç haɪɐ] 'I marry' (Louden 1997: 81).The difference between [aɪ] and [ɛ:] is the most salient shibboleth between Lancaster and Midwestern varieties; see Keiser 2012: 75-115 for an extensive sociolinguistic analysis of this phenomenon.A third diphthong, [aʊ], is documented in older varieties of Pennsylvania Dutch, for example, in Albert F. Buffington's 1937 doctoral dissertation, which was based on data from nonsectarian speakers from Pennsylvania.Examples cited by Buffington (1937:109) include native vocabulary, e.g., Haus [haʊs], Gaul [gaʊl], laut [laʊt], as well as English borrowings, e.g., ebaut [əbaʊt] 'about', ennihau [ɛnɪhaʊ] 'anyhow', and Kraud [kɾaʊt] 'crowd'.Other studies from the same era, namely the dissertations of Alfred L. Shoemaker (1940) andJ. William Frey (1941), describe a vowel intermediate between [aʊ] and the modern long monophthong [a:] that they still identify as a diphthong.Shoemaker was a native speaker of the nonsectarian variety spoken in Lehigh County, PA, located in the northeastern region of the traditional Pennsylvania Dutch Country, who studied the Midwestern speech of Amish in Arthur, IL.Frey spoke and studied the Pennsylvania Dutch variety of eastern York County in the southwestern Dutch Country.Shoemaker (1940:14-15) describes the Arthur Amish pronunciations of Haus, Gaul, and other words with historical [aʊ] as long monophthongs followed by a "slurred vowel" (schwa): [a:ə].In a section comparing lexical differences between Arthur Amish Pennsylvania Dutch and his native variety, Shoemaker includes Lehigh pronunciations that also include [a:ə] in words that once were pronounced with [aʊ].e.g., versaue
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,156 | 0,036 |
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 ».