A sociophonetic study of Filipino English in Winnipeg, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Filipino community in Winnipeg is unique, for that they are not only the largest minority group in the city, they also settled primarily in the northwest area of the city, forming a close-knit enclave. In addition, they are a highly visible group in Winnipeg and have strong familial and community ties. This dissertation explores the sociophonetic patterns among Filipinos in Winnipeg. To achieve this goal, I compare the linguistic behavior of Filipinos to the general population by examining three phonetic features: Canadian Raising, /æg/-raising and Voice Onset Time (VOT). Acoustic phonetic analyses and statistical analyses are carried out on the data that are drawn from 26 Filipino Winnipeggers (FWs) and 17 Traditional Winnipeggers (TWs). The major findings of the three linguistic variables are as follows. For Canadian Raising, first-generation FWs do not participate in Canadian Raising of /aɪ/ and /aʊ/. Second-generation FWs show the same extent of /aɪ/-raising, but less degree of /aʊ/-raising as compared to the local mainstream speakers. This pattern may correlate with the different regional distributions of the two diphthongs and indicate second-generation FWs are more oriented toward national standards or large urban centers. For /æg/-raising, the Filipino second-generation women show the same degree of raising as their local counterparts, while the Filipino second-generation men have less raising and pattern with the first generation. This gendered difference reflects the more diverse social networks among second-generation women than among second-generation men. For VOT, language transfer effects are only found in the first-generation FWs, and have not passed along to second-generation FWs, which aligns with the findings of Hoffman and Walker (2010). This study indicates that the linguistic variation among Filipinos is potentially influenced by their social roles and social connections in Winnipeg. The findings of this dissertation support an intersectional approach, taking into account of ethnicity, gender, and generation, while investigating ethnolinguistic variation. This dissertation is also the first to discuss Filipino Canadians in Winnipeg and their English production patterns, and provides more materials for the growing studies of sociolinguistic variation in Asian communities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".