Studien Zur Sprache Des Dichters Jakub Bart-Cisinski
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jana Schulz (Solcina). Stuthen zur Sprache des Dichters Jakub Bart-Cisinski. Letopis. Zeitschrift fur sorbische Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur. Sonderheft, 56. Bautzen: Domowina- Verlag, 2009. 201 pp. euro15.00, paper.The Sorbian poet Jakub Bart was born in 1856 in Kuckau/Kukow (today PanschwitzKuckau/Pancicy-Kukow) in the Catholic area near Kamenz/Kamjenc. He wrote under the pen-name Cisinski (the silent one) and died in 1909 in Panschwitz/Pancicy. In addition to being a fine poet, he took a keen interest in the role of the written language, its relationship to colloquial/dialectal language, and linguistic purism. Cisinski' s views on language were influenced by the Slovak linguist Martin Hartala (182 1-1903), whose Brusjazyka ceskeho [An Antibarbarus of the Czech Language, 1877] circulated widely in the Sorbian students' association Serbowka at Prague University during Cisinski' s time there. Cisinski sought to apply Hattala's views in his own writings and published a programmatic article entitled Hlosy ze Serbo do Serbo w [Voices from Sorb ianl and to Sorb ianl and] in which he took to task the older generation of Sorbian linguists for not viewing language as a mirror of the people and for neglecting syntax as the central domain of a linguistic system (p. 37).Jana Schulz has set herself the task of tracing how Cisinski' s theoretical premises are reflected in his artistic writings. The results of her investigation form the central, although not the longest, part of this work (pp. 47-79), which grew out of her doctoral dissertation at Leipzig University. The study also includes discussion of research in literary languages, especially the Sorbian literary languages, Sorbian as a minority language, the antiGermanization movement of the Jungsorben in Leipzig and Prague, a brief biography of Jakub Bart-Cisinski, and a detailed investigation of the writer's orthography, morphology, lexicon, and syntax (pp. 80-183). The seemingly disproportionate length of this last section is due to a word (pp. 94-152) which might have been more profitably included as an appendix. The resulting imbalance means that the study does not reflect Cisinski' s own views about the centrality of syntax.As things stand, Cisinski' s syntax is covered in thirteen pages (pp. 168-180). To determine how his theoretical premises are reflected in his artistic writings, Schulz subjected 3000 sentences from different periods and different genres to a detailed analysis. In general, the syntactic structures employed by the Sorbian writer follow the framework outlined in Georg Liebsch's Syntax der Wendischen Sprache in der Oberlausitz [Syntax of the Wendish Language in Upper Lusatia], published in Bautzen/Budysin in 1884. Like Lieb seh, Cisinski shows a distinct preference for complex sentences, restricting the use of simple sentences to questions, commands, and stage directions in his dramas (p. 169). Furthermore, in the selected syntactic corpus there is a preference for multiple embedded sentences, which often give the impression of a lack of clarity and transparency, but which are obviously an attempt on the writer's part to demonstrate the sophistication of Upper Sorbian syntax (p. …
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 it