Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction When nations meet on terms of independence and equality, they tend to stress the need for communication in the language of the other. They choose the language of the other merely to ease communication in their dealings with one another. But when they meet as oppressor and oppressed, ’ , then their languages cannot experience a genuinely democratic encounter. This chapter traces the intersection between the spread of English in postcolonial communities and its employment as a vehicle of postcolonial literature. Rather than listing developments in individual countries, or forms of English that have arisen there, the chapter looks at metadiscourse, at the methodological issues and ideological undercurrents that have contributed to shape the ways in which we describe such language phenomena and literary products. In spite of the fundamental differences in outlook, there are many similarities between the study of ‘English languages’ and that of ‘English literatures’, and there has been quite an amount of cross-fertilization, because on the one hand the symbolic value of language has been a key aspect in the development of postcolonial literatures, and on the other hand this development has been conducive to the emerging of new identities conveyed by language variation. For these reasons, the second part of the chapter is devoted to literary statements on English, intended both as metacomments on the writers’ lives and works, and as representations of language use within their works. The first part outlines some main concepts and models within linguistic studies on postcolonial English, and some points of contact with literary theory, starting from issues related to terminology, which are far from being irrelevant or neutral.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".