The Spoken Language of Ukrainian and Rusin Diasporas: Consonant Orthoepy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article contains the synchronous analysis of the spoken language and in particular the pronunciation of the Ukrainian youth in America, Canada, Europe, the Transnistrian Moldavian Republic (most of whom are Rusins). The sociological survey has demonstrated the percentage of those who own the consontant orthoepy standard in a wide local and social representation abroad, determined the most common pronunciation problems and orthoepic deviations in the system of consonantism, identified their reasons, and proved the historical organicity of modern orthoepic norm. The research of the spoken language of the Ukrainian diaspora focuses on the sociophonetic aspects at the level of its sound presentations. The author aims at determining the level of mastery of the consonant orthoepy of the Ukrainian literary language by young people, representing different local and social spheres: orthoepy of voiced consonants at the end of the word and in front of the voiceless consonants; voiceless consonants before voiced ones; prefixes роз-, без-, об-, prefixes-prepositions з-, від-, між- before voiceless consonants, except for hushing sounds; [в] as [ў]; [д̑з], [д̑ж]. According to the generalized results of the survey, the pronunciation of voiced sounds at the end of the word, the voiceless sounds before the voiced ones, [г], prefixes роз-, без-, об-, з-, affricates [д̑з], [д̑ж] are defined as strong based on the percentage abroad. The norms of the pronunciation of the prefixes об-, між- are considered weak in the speech of the respondents; the greatest difficulties arise when pronouncing the sonorous з- in the word зцідити – 35 % possession of the norm (Transnistrian Moldavian Republic – 15 %, Europe – 43 %, America –30 %, Canada – 50 %). However, the pronunciation norms of the prefixes роз-, без-, з-, affricates [д̑з], [д̑ж] in foreign countries are strong, while the pronunciation norms of the prefixes об-, від-, між- are unstable. The norms of the pronunciation of phonemes in the middle of the word, [в] as [у᷃] are also weak. Typical deviations are related to the influence of Russian orthoepy or spelling. Differences in the percentage of the norm possession depend on the usage of the word and the complexity of sound changes, since in the process of assimilation, the sound changes not only its acoustic but also articulatory characteristics – the place or method of formation. Thus, nowadays, the mistakes in the pronunciation of voiced consonants are due to lack of theoretical knowledge, influence of dialectal speech and the Russian language, since these orthoepic norms were fixed in writing and theoretically substantiated in the grammars of the early 20th century, as it can be seen in manuscripts. The pronunciation rules that are consistently reflected in the manuscripts are strong and followed by the informants.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".