Sprechen Wir Deutsch? The construction of identity in Austria and South Tyrol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines some of the linguistic tools, techniques, means, and methods by which the populations of Austria and South Tyrol construct identity. In order to better situate these two communities, this paper begins with an overview of the conditions which led to the creation of each state. It then explains some of the ways in which language can be used as a tool of identity construction. Positioning theory details ways both these groups create categories of separationand belonging. Citing the use of Austrian German, dialect in literature, differing pronunciation, and lexical development, this paper examines how the population of Austria constructs a linguistic identity distancing itself from Germany. This paper also examines how, using similar linguistic tools such as pronoun use and naming techniques, the population of South Tyrol constructs its identity. In contrast to Austria, the South Tyroleans align themselves with Germany, creating closer ties with Germanic neighbours while distancing themselves from Italy. Each population positions itself in relation to Germany, either with or against, using linguistic tools to create a group identity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".