Ideology in the discourse of Montreal-based private language schools' websites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian language training sector is a booming industry for those interested in capitalizing on the worldwide demand for English, such as private language schools. Thus, this study analyzed the websites of two Montreal-based private language schools to elucidate how these schools use discursive and visual resources to advance their ideology. Defined as a form of social practice (Fairclough, 1992; Pare, 2002), ideology is the way in which the schools are acting discursively in order to serve their for-profit interests. Specifically, the study investigated how both schools manage the tension between their claims to educational legitimacy and their business concerns. The study used analytical strategies from Fairclough's (1992, 2003) Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Kress and van Leuuven's (2006) visual grammar. Findings revealed that the schools further their ideology by positioning and legitimating themselves as educational institutions, and commercializing non-educational services (e.g., sightseeing tours) promoted as having second language (L2) developmental value.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".