A Study of Pragmatic Change in the Vietnamese of Second Generation Speakers in Queensland, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language contact, bilingualism and contact-induced language change have created controversial issues among linguists as more and more people of different languages and cultures around the world come into contact. There have been studies of the phenomena of language change including code switching, code mixing, interference, transference, and convergence in different language dyads (Clyne, 2003), especially in multi-lingual societies like Australia, the United States of America and Canada. However, there is insufficient research into the Vietnamese language used in Australia and its changes in comparison with Vietnamese used in Vietnam. This empirical study, therefore, investigates the patterns of pragmatic transference in spoken Vietnamese used by the second generation speakers in Australia who are English-Vietnamese bilinguals. The basic hypothesis of this thesis is that the formulae of pragmatic speech acts in spoken Vietnamese used by the second generation and their lack of knowledge or incorrect usage of Vietnamese idioms and proverbsshow a shift from indirectness to directness in the pragmatic performance of the language. Specifically, the study focuses on the speech act of refusal and the usage of Vietnamese idioms and proverbs. The study documents such pragmatic transference and explores the causes of these changes. The findings will help to fill the gap in the study of language change in linguistics as a whole, and particularly the study of the Vietnamese of the English-Vietnamese bilinguals, and the English-Vietnamese dyad in terms of linguistic and pragmatic elements.The findings have implications for language maintenance among the Vietnamese diaspora community in Australia, for the study of language change in heritage languages, and for understanding trends in the multicultural and multilingual society of Australia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".