Afrikaanse spreektaalnormen en prescriptieve Afrikaanse normen : is er genoeg ruimte voor grammaticale diversiteit in het Standaardafrikaans? : navorsings- en oorsigartikels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Afrikaans speech norms and prescriptive Afrikaans norms : is there enough scope for grammatical diversity in Standard Afrikaans? Afrikaans may be a standardized language, but it is acknowledged that the standardization it has undergone is not quite thorough and should be continued, particularly at the grammatical level. How the standardization process should be continued has, however, been the topic of a debate that emerged in the 1990s : should Standard Afrikaans reflect spoken varieties or its own written tradition? The origin of that debate was the fear that the gap between Standard Afrikaans and spoken varieties would, in the long term, widen and alienate a growing number of Afrikaans speakers, undermining its position and status in the process. Against today's background of the diminishing visibility of Standard Afrikaans not only in the media but also in education, that debate arguably deserves to be reopened once more. But then, arguably, that debate cannot dispense with a clear idea of linguistic variation in the Afrikaans speech community, and in particular in the informal register. And the central question which must be asked in reference to that informal register is : how deep is the imprint that Standard Afrikaans has left on it as a result of compulsory education and exposure to the media? And considering today's changed sociolinguistic settings : is that imprint diminishing, allowing informal spoken Afrikaans to evolve its own rules? Les normes de l'Afrikaans parle et de l'Afrikaans standard : y a-t-il lieu de reconnaitre la diversite grammaticale de l'Afrikaans? Dans le contexte sociolinguistique actuel ou l'Afrikaans, dans sa forme prescriptive, perd en visibilite, il semble approprie de reouvrir un ancien debat : l'Afrikaans standard doit-il refleter les normes du registre Afrikaans informel ou sa propre tradition ecrite? Il est difficile de repondre a cette question sans un examen preliminaire de la variation qui prevaut actuellement dans l'Afrikaans parle. Pour faciliter cette tâche, nous avons assemble un corpus d'Afrikaans parle sous la forme de sept echantillons composes de locuteurs Blancs et Metis, subdivises en trois groupes generationnels. Afin de determiner s'il y a lieu ou non de parler de convergence vers l'Afrikaans standard, un total de 15 variables morphosyntactiques a ete selectionne et soumis a une analyse statistique. Les resultats de cette analyse montrent qu'il peut y avoir convergence entre echantillons soit en direction de la variante prescriptive, soit en direction de la variante non-standard. Il s'avere que, dans tous les cas, les locuteurs Blancs restent les plus proches de la norme prescriptive. Il s'avere aussi que, malgre l'ecart systematique observable entre Blancs et Metis, tous deux ont generalement tendance a converger mutuellement, sans que cette convergence ne se fasse necessairement en direction de la norme prescriptive.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".