Die Tschechischen Kontaktwörter in der Slovakischen Sprachpraxis Und in der Rezeption der Zeitgenössischen Slovakistik
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Martina Gazdikova. Die tschechischen Kontaktworter in der slovakischen Sprachpraxis und in der Kezeption der zeitgenossischen Slovakistik. Slavistische Beitrage, Band 440. Munich: Otto Sagner, 2005. 339 pp. Appendices. Bibliography. euro26.00, paper.This dissertation, completed at the University of Mannheim in 2004, deals with a very current topic-Bohemisms (Czechisms) in Contemporary Standard Slovak. The author elucidates these from the viewpoint of Slovak normative linguistics-lexicography in particular-and posits them on the basis of their occurrence in the language of today's press (the author herself has compiled a corpus of some 50 million words). Her findings are additionally based on a sociolinguistic survey she has conducted among more than 60 native-speaker informants.After an introduction (pp. 11-18), the author reviews Czech-Slovak language contact in its historical context (pp. 19-28). Chapter 2 (pp. 29-44) provides an overview of Czech contact phenomena at various grammatical and stylistic levels as well as factors influencing the occurrence of Bohemisms in Slovak. Chapter 3 (pp. 45-48) lays out the bases on which the author indentifies lexical Bohemisms in her work. Here the author relies exclusively on secondary literature, inasmuch as she is less concerned with providing etymological evidence of the Czech origin of a given word in Slovak than with examining the codificatory status and the use of words regarded as Bohemisms. Her data yield 1,865 such words and syntagms.In Chapter 4 (pp. 49-61) the author investigates which words and combinations of words occur in recent editions of the normative Kratky slovnik slovenskeho jazyka (KSSJ: Jan Kacalaetal. comps. Bratislava, 1987 [3rd ed., 1997]) and how they are classified there. In so doing, the author finds that only 365 of the 1,865 putative Bohemisms cited in the secondary literature are included in this dictionary. Of these, 69 are defined neutrally (i.e., without any qualifying annotation); 100 are defined with various qualifiers (literary, technical, colloquial, expressive, archaic, and so on) which assign the words to various styles and registers of Standard Slovak. A further 49 words are relegated to the periphery of Standard Slovak with such qualifiers as dialectal, slang, or substandard, while 135 words are marked wrong and thus alien to any variety of the Slovak language. A comparison of the first, 1987 edition of the KSSJ (published in the final years of communist Czechoslovakia) with the 1997 edition reveals that the codificatory classifications of 100 entries underwent changes; these changes resulted almost without exception either in the entries' deletion from the dictionary or in a downgrading of their status.In continuing her investigation, the author selects 35 lexical items that are marked wrong for the first time in the 1997 KSSJ and subjects them to a detailed analysis in Chapter 5 (pp. 62-184). Here she not only documents the occurrence of these words in the Slovak press, but also carefully delineates the factors favouring the use of each word and draws semantic distinctions between the Bohemisms and the Slovak equivalents codified as correct in the 1997 KSSJ. She succeeds in demonstrating not only that many of the words marked as wrong in the dictionary are actually quite current, but that they have a functional justification in Slovak, i.e., they cannot necessarily be supplanted by their Slovak In Chapter 6 (pp. 185-244) these same 35 words are evaluated by speakers of Slovak from various parts of Slovakia, all within the context of their respective Slovak equivalents. …
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".