On the Use of English Morphological Neologisms as Linguistic Reflection of War: Translation Aspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aims to investigate the origin and attributes of newly coined words in contemporary language, with a specific focus on their association with the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The study delves into the morphological and derivational features of recently created lexemes, revealing the impact of digital technologies on language instruction and the importance of language attainment in societal progress. The present study centres on neologisms that have surfaced during the conflict, specifically those that are derived from personal names and geographical regions. The investigation draws upon existing literature on neologisms and their societal significance. The examination underscores the morphological processes implicated in the creation of these recently coined expressions, including affixation and the utilisation of prefixes and suffixes. The significance of investigating English morphological neologisms as linguistic manifestations of warfare are emphasised by the research. This study explores the emergence and import of newly coined words and phrases about the conflict in English, analysing their sociopolitical and cultural underpinnings. The study endeavours to identify patterns and trends in the usage of newly coined words related to war by conducting a quantitative analysis of written and spoken English corpora. Furthermore, qualitative research utilising virtual interviews, questionnaires, and audio recordings investigates the social and political influences that contribute to the development and application of these newly coined terms. This research enhances academic discourse by broadening the comprehension of neologisms and their sociolinguistic ramifications. The text showcases the influence of digital technologies on language education and emphasises the significance of translation in fostering intercultural understanding. Through an examination of the difficulties associated with the translation of a recently created lexicon, this study offers valuable perspectives for individuals working in the field of translation and related language-based professions. In general, this research contributes to our comprehension of the evolution of language and its ability to adapt to societal and geopolitical conditions, particularly during periods of conflict.
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 | 0.055 |
| 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".