MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4383822213 · doi:10.1111/gequ.12365

Are universities, and their language departments, now promoting new forms of linguistic indifference?

2023· article· en· W4383822213 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Caroline L. Rieger

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe German Quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Établissements canadiensQuest University CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGermanIdeologySociologyHigher educationHegemonyAccountabilityPedagogyPromotion (chess)LinguisticsPolitical sciencePoliticsLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

As previous sections of this forum illustrate, ostensibly multilingual practices and discourses are not immune to linguistic indifference. Nor does—in any domain whatsoever—a mere affirmative pivot to multiplicity solve the problem of indifference. The very ecologies of our university departments and programs, and the affordances and constraints that shape our work within them, have been contoured by pressures that often encourage linguistic indifference. In light of the institutional imperatives that might tacitly endorse such a posture, this contribution considers how German studies programs in Canada and the United States have responded to neoliberal paradigm shifts in higher education since the 1990s, where tallying “butts in seats” has been treated as the primary form of accountability. Demands to demonstrate high enrollments have led to the practice of teaching Germanistik in translation in English-speaking post-secondary institutions (Gilman; Hohendahl). Taking my home department at the University of British Columbia as an example, I argue that this practice of prioritizing courses taught in English has not been shown to foster increased interest in German studies as a major or minor area of study, even where such an Anglophone emphasis does bolster the cumulative student credit hours spent in individual courses. Meanwhile, though, the strategy has led to an inadvertent promotion of monolingual ideologies and English-language hegemony since the translatedness and translingual nature of texts and discourses are rarely centered in courses that are heralded as broadly accessible. Modern language programs have argued for decades that the teaching and learning of additional languages add to higher education the kind of value that otherwise cannot be achieved (Byrnes; Maxim; Pfeiffer). Yet we seem to be undermining those arguments when teaching our discipline monolingually in English. A German course taught in English cannot guide socio-, inter-, cross-, and transcultural literacy—the ability to see oneself through the cultural lens of others and through the cultural lens of another language—the way it does if the texts under consideration are read in the original German. Courses taught in translation do not afford adequate insights into how the language(s) we speak, hear, breathe, and live are intimately interwoven with how we experience the world, how we make sense of it, and how those language(s), in tandem with other sociocultural, socio-cognitive, and emotional aspects acquired with and mediated through those same language(s), condition us in our perceptions, choices, values and beliefs (Modern Language Association; Kramsch, Language). These experiential dimensions of transcultural and translingual learning (Kramsch, “Translingual”) go missing when the difference is only ever positioned as an object of study and never as a practical occasion to inhabit the world otherwise. Of course, students can be instructed or informed that all humans have the necessary anatomical equipment to see the color blue, but the word and concept of blue are required to actually see it. And yet, this descriptive approach to multilingualism can never approximate the experience of seeing blue for the first or the thousandth time. A parallel case can be made that grasping new concepts for the first time, through the ways they are conveyed in a new language or other semiotic system, is a powerful experience that affords us insights into the ways that language shapes who we are. At the same time, that experience opens up not just new worlds—literature taught in English does so as well, after all— but new ways of thinking-for-speaking, speaking-for-thinking, speaking-for-being (Slobin). In tandem with studying German cinema, literature, and thought as historical and cultural avatars, these multilingual insights translate into reflection on our own values and beliefs, seeking to respect and empathize with those of others, opening our minds to the plurality of languages, to the plurality of being.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,040
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,047
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,213

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0400,055
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0190,064
Communication savante0,0470,040
Science ouverte0,0040,025
Intégrité de la recherche0,0110,014
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,241
Écart entre enseignants0,223 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe German QuarterlyMême sujetSecond Language Learning and TeachingTravaux en français237 207