Linguistic and cultural specifics of the sports media narrative (based on the example of sports commentaries in Canada and Russia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is devoted to the comparative study of the specifics of the sports media narrative. The aim of the study is to compare the sports media narrative in the linguistic and cultural paradigm (based on the material of sports commentaries from Canada and Russia). The object of the study is the sports media narrative in the Canadian and Russian linguistic cultures. The subject of the study is the linguistic and cultural aspect of the sports media narrative of Russia and Canada. The relevance of this article lies in the fact that events in the field of sports reflect the problems of globalization and forecasting the future, which determines the importance of both a comprehensive and aspect-based study of communication in this field and, in particular, the sports media narrative. In addition, comparative studies that identify the linguistic and cultural features of the modern media text, its expressive capabilities as a means of organizing narration, correspond to the methodology of modern language science. The main methods used in this work are comparative discourse analysis and the linguistic narrative method. In addition, quantitative data processing methods were used. The novelty of this work is due to the fact that for the first time a comparative analysis of the sports media narrative in English and Russian (based on the material of sports commentary) is carried out. Conclusions: oral texts produced within the framework of both discourses are characterized by internal dynamics, polycode (the commentator's speech is accompanied by a video sequence) and are arranged in accordance with the canonical narrative sequence. When describing the image of an event, commentators, speakers of different linguistic cultures, use an extra-egitic strategy (an omniscient observer-narrator), sometimes using an introdiegetic strategy (the desire to indirectly become a participant in the narrated events). Linguistic and cultural differences are most clearly seen at the level of speech types. Russian commentators are characterized by the use of informative narration, while Canadian commentators use descriptive narration. The second most significant type of speech in the Russian media discourse is reasoning. For Canadian commentators, the description is more typical. The Russian sports media narrative follows a dramatic (plot) way of showing events, while the Canadian one follows a chronotopic one, i.e. it is determined by reference to time and place. The revealed differences may indicate that when narrating an event, commentators create a "second reality" based on their axiological attitudes due to cultural differences between the two countries.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".