The Canadian-Polish Lexicon: Classes of Items and Their Semantic Distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on the analysis of a specific group of lexemes used by Polish immigrants in Canada. The vocabulary used appears neither in Standard Polish nor in Standard English, but is an outcome of the contact of two separate language and culture systems and is characteristic only of the Polish language spoken by immigrant generations living outside Poland in English-speaking countries, in this case, Canada. The research reported in this paper is based on a corpus of lexeme items excerpted from a few sources: lexical and grammar surveys filled out by the respondents, the Polish media in Canada, recordings of the speech of first- and second-generation respondents, and daily conversations with Polish immigrants. On the basis of the contrastive method of language description, which also takes into consideration extralinguistic and intralinguistic factors, I distinguish seven classes of lexical items: 1. morphologically adapted lexical items, 2. structural transfers, 3. semantic transfers, 4. citations, 5. Canadian-Polish idioms, 6. caiques, 7. Canadian-Polish word-formations. A major goal of this paper is to investigate the types of Canadian-Polish lexical items and to examine the semantic distribution of these items with respect to the contact of the two cultures. This article is based on a broader sociolinguistic project examining the Polish immigrant minority group and the language spoken by this group in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) (Lustanski 2005).
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 | 0.001 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".