MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411556678 · doi:10.7202/1118384ar

Non-binary language in consecutive interpreting from English into Italian: An experimental study on the viability of schwa endings

2024· article· en· W4411556678 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Igor Facchini, Ira Torresi

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Studies in Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchwaLinguisticsEnglish languageHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Italian is a gender-marked binary language with masculine and feminine as the only possible grammatical genders. One strategy that was recently put forward to deconstruct the gender dichotomy and to allow for non-binary individuals to be linguistically acknowledged is to replace gendered endings (-a,-o,-e,-i) with a schwa (ə), both in writing and speech. While some authors and media outlets have started adopting this solution in written texts, questions may arise concerning its viability in the oral medium, particularly in constrained translation modes such as conference interpreting. If, on the one hand, the schwa could serve as a less time-consuming alternative to extended gender-neutral periphrases, on the other, such benefit may be outweighed by processing capacity overloads, since non-binary schwa declensions entail morphological changes that are non-standard in spoken Italian, and may thus prove too burdensome to control. In order to investigate this issue, an experimental study was conducted with 12 advanced trainee interpreters who were instructed to interpret consecutively a text from English into Italian using schwa endings when referring to humans. Although with a certain amount of non-fluencies, misuse of schwa endings and occasional relapse into binary language, participants were mostly able to implement effective non-binary language strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeta Journal des traducteursSame topicGender Studies in LanguageFrench-language works237,207