NATIONAL AND CULTURAL PECULIARITIES OF PHONETICS IN THE AMERICAN ENGLISH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article shows the establishment of the territorial norms on the level of phonetics in the American English. It analyses their national and cultural peculiarities. The studied and presented material shows that the phonetic characteristics of the American national version of the English language have their own territorial national and cultural characteristics. The article deals with the issue of phonetic peculiarities of the dialectic language as an ideal of the signs of the territorial jurisdiction of native speakers in terms of interpersonal communication. The main causes of regional dialects are analyzed. Separately, it is noted that the phonetic characteristics of the American national version of English in the South-West of the United States have their own regional identity. It is underlined that distinctive phonetic features of the English language in the United States include not only dialect phenomena, but they are also characteristic of the literary language. The assessment of the same linguistic facts from the point of view of American and British norms is indicative in this respect. In this article, it is discussed in detail the phonetic features of American English compared to British, officially recognized in the world community the main. The American version is of the greatest interest in comparison with Canadian, Australian and New Zealand English, because, for various reasons, it has undergone a large number of changes in all aspects of the language, including phonetic. The article emphasizes that the United States is developing its own territorial phonetic norms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".