Intelligibility between Iranun and Maranaw Languages through the Lens of Austin’s Speech Acts Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are languages in Southern Philippines that are closely related where speakers are mutually intelligible especially on the case of Maranaw and Iranun. The purpose of this qualitative study employing content analysis is to identify the mutual intelligibility of the two Danao languages-the Maranaw and Iranun. The analysis of the study was anchored from the framework of Austin (1962) on illocutionary acts in terms of verdictives, exercitives, commissives, behavitives, and expositives. Results revealed that these languages showed their closeness and easy understanding when speakers converse. In expositives for example, the word affirms, confirms, and not have the same equivalent in both languages. The same with commissives for vow, promise, and pledge. Almost the same in behavitives, however, during the interview, an Iranun speaker used a distinct word that is not intelligible among the Maranaw speakers. For, verdictives and exercitives, both languages used the same terminologies with the same meaning and used in the same contexts and situations. Furthermore, this paper emphasizes preservation of the rich cultural heritage. Though, these Danao languages are not considered endangered, but because of the scarcity of literatures, findings of this study could fill those gaps.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".