Systems of pragmatic markers in contact: Processes and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pragmatic markers are highly polyfunctional and polysemic lexical units that generally occur in sentence-peripheral positions and do not contribute to the propositional content of an utterance. In situations of language contact, pragmaticmarkers are particularly susceptible to borrowing and other cross-linguistic influencesbecause of their syntactic and semantic detachability. This paper presents a corpus-based analysis of the influence of language contact with English on the system ofpragmatic markers in spoken Manitoban French, a variety of Canadian French spoken in Manitoba. To this aim, three sets of partially equivalent pragmatic markerswere chosen for analysis: comme and like; alors, donc, and so; and bon, ben, and well.The analysis shows vastly different outcomes of long-term language contact on specific markers in one system. Four outcomes are discussed in this paper; namely, theemergence of new discourse-pragmatic functions, the borrowing of a marker fromthe other language, changes in frequency and productivity of specific markers, andthe absence of specific markers in the system.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".