MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019129849 · doi:10.1177/0075424210367484

The Stuff of Change: General Extenders in Toronto, Canada

2010· article· en· W2019129849 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sali A. Tagliamonte, Derek Denis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of English Linguistics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrammaticalizationLinguisticsVariation (astronomy)Semantic changeBritish EnglishVarieties of EnglishHappeningSociologyAustralian EnglishPsychologyHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines general extenders (GEs) in the English spoken in Toronto, Canada, using a 1.2-million-word corpus stratified by age, sex, and education. Employing quantitative techniques, the authors assess the nature of the system, particularly the possibility that it has undergone recent grammaticalization. Diagnostic tests for phonetic reduction, decategorization, semantic change, and pragmatic shift reveal that only decategorization is visible in apparent time. Otherwise, older and younger speakers share most of the same patterns. Yet there is a dramatic shift happening in that the form stuff is rapidly becoming the predominant GE.The authors conclude that in contrast to the United Kingdom, the GEs in Toronto are not grammaticalizing but are undergoing lexical replacement. These findings suggest that discourse-pragmatic features may differ markedly across varieties and further that putative indicators of grammaticalization may not always operate in tandem. GEs provide a unique opportunity to study social and linguistic influences on discourse-pragmatic variation.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations98
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of English LinguisticsSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207