Pragmatische Spezifika der Kommunikation Von Russlanddeutschen in Sibirien. Entlehnung Von Diskursmarkern Und Modifikatoren Sowie Code-Switching
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renate Blankenhorn. Pragmatische Spezifika der Kommunikation von Russlanddeutschen in Sibirien. Entlehnung von Diskursmarkern und Modifikatoren sowie Code-switching. Berliner Slawistische Arbeiten, Band 20. Eds. Wolfgang Gladrow, Barbara Kunzmann-Muller, Heinrich Olschowsky and Georg Witte. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2003. 263 pp.This monograph is one of the fruits of the blooming research on contact linguistics that I personally could have had good use for a year ago. Still, better now than never. The monograph was presented as a doctoral dissertation, and the author no doubt has more information in reserve. Research the world over is developing criteria for the classification of language contact phenomena, and, notably, those of code-switching seem to be in flux. Here, the author refers to the European rather than American approaches (e.g., fused lects of Peter Auer), leaving aside specific formal grammatical theories. This is justified by the title: pragmatic specifics of communication.The Russian Germans as speakers of a minority language are described on the basis of previous research as to their history, and the changing diglossic situation in Siberia at the moment sheds light on the focal factors of prestige, ethnicity, identity. What is notable in this case is that there is competition between a non-standardized German dialect and the all-encompassing standard Russian, and all the speakers are bilingual. The in-group speech form is, consequently, in a weak position (chapters 1-2).The corpus under study (chapter 3) consists of 48 hours of audiotaped interviews and group discussions taken either by the author or some representatives of the group. There are altogether 56 informants. The material was gathered in 1998 in Western Siberia, the Altai and Omsk areas to be specific. The first wave of the Germans in these areas arrived at the end of the nineteenth century from Ukraine and the European side of Russia, further waves came as deportees in the 20th century. Altogether the settlements were considerable, in the 1970s ca. 240,000 (p. 65). Although repatriation to Germany has been lively, there are still villages where German is spoken in private life.The material is heterogeneous, due to the unstable linguistic situation-individual competences vary along with the increasing weight of Russian. Even so, the author finds phenomena that are common to all the speakers (p. 69).There is much to learn about Russian discourse markers (chapter 4). The speakers seem to favour Russian particles, conjunctions, interjections, pronouns and adverbs in their German speech-a phenomenon that is common in other bilingual situations in Russia as well. And at least concerning particles and conjunctions, Russian is the source of borrowing in many minority languages surrounded by Russian, mainly due to the oral form of language contact. Here the author has at her disposal the well-covered ground of particle research in German and Russian, with Renate Rathmayr as a forerunner (although the French researchers of Russian particles seem to be missing in the bibliography). The classification is thus divided into discourse markers some of which are polyfunctional: opening particles a, nu, vidish', davajte, concluding particles vot, vsjo, net?, da?, verno?, utterance internal particles nu, vot, further connectors (various adversatives like a, no, vsjo ravno, coordinatives like i, ili, including adverbs like togda, potom, causals like potomu-chto, poetomu, metacommunicative markers znachit, skazhem, naprimer, voobshche. Fillers include vot, eto, tam, tak (an addition to the list in Shimchuk & Schur 1999). Reactive relatives include again nu, da, nu!, inenno, konechno, ladno, pozhalujsta, da?,, net, kuda tam, prichem tut, nu! (as a declining reaction), nu kak!, zdravstvuj!. Interjections are included in the discourse markers as well. On p. 123 the author presents a generalized list of the functions of the markers in discourse. …
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it