MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W633381425 · doi:10.34382/00002581

Philippine English : a case of language drift

2010· article· en· W633381425 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)LinguisticsFirst languageScrutinyForeign languageLanguage transferIndigenizationNorm (philosophy)English studiesTest of English as a Foreign LanguageEnglish languageSociologyHistoryPolitical scienceLanguage educationComputer scienceComprehension approachPedagogyArtificial intelligenceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The common perception that English in the Philippines has been deteriorating can be seen as a case of indigenization, resulting in a language variety which qualifies as a dialect even if the process that gave rise to it differs from the traditional account of dialectalization. It has particular linguistic features that arose out of a gradual drift in language learning away from the native language speaker, such that generations of Filipino learners of English have picked up the forms and rules of English from Filipino second-language learners trained by other Filipino secondlanguage learners. While international travel and information technology now allow Filipinos to have ample exposure to and easily learn the English of the US, UK, Canada and Australia, the English teaching tradition in the country has persisted in espousing the Pinoy variety. While American sounds and idioms have become the norm for call centers and FM radio, all other language-based institutions have resisted the so-called “foreign” sound, with some educators even considering the standardization of Philippine English (or Pinoy English, to use a colloquial term to emphasize its localization) for academic purposes. The features of Pinoy English can be seen from a scrutiny of the outputs of English teachers, media practitioners, and leaders of society in the Philippines. On the other hand, the features of international English can be abstracted from a study of international print and broadcast media. The dif ferences between the two result from interference by Philippine languages, and the systematized forms of Filipino language professionals, nearly all of whom learned their English from Filipino teachers who, in turn, learned from other Filipino teachers, with almost everyone using limited dictionaries and traditional grammar books as primary sources for language learning. Like genetic drift, in which random mutations eventually spread out in a species through genetic transmission, language drift refers to random changes in forms and rules that diffuse throughout a speech community through cultural transmission, and have become regular and systematic, especially if the diffusers are considered as English exemplars in the community, e.g.:

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.297 · 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