Le créole c’est presque la même affaire du français, on fait des formules… c’est déformé: Les représentations des langues par des enfants haïtiens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cet article explore les représentations sur les langues de 11 jeunes élèves créolophones scolarisés en français langue seconde et l’existence d’une relation entre ces représentations et leur apprentissage de l’écrit en français langue seconde. Les résultats montrent que la majorité des sujets ne manifestent pas explicitement de jugements sur leur langue d’origine et sur la langue de scolarisation. Ils ont généralement tendance à reconnaître une forme d’égalité des langues d’un point de vue linguistique et communicationnel. En fait, seuls les élèves ayant un apprentissage plus rapide de l’écrit en français ont la capacité de nommer et de parler des autres langues, ce qui démontre une certaine conscience plurilingue. À l’inverse, pour les élèves ayant un développement plus lent, on remarque une faible curiosité relative à l’apprentissage des langues et une perception négative de la diversité linguistique. Abstract This article examines representation of languages from eleven young Creole pupils studying French as a second language, and the relationship between these representations and their learning of written French. The results show that the majority of the subjects do not explicitly demonstrate judgements on their source language and the language of schooling. They generally tend to recognize a form of equality of the languages from a linguistic and communication point of view. In fact, only pupils who have a fast training of French writing have the capacity to speak about other languages, what demonstrates a certain plurilingual consciousness. For students demonstrating a slower development rate, the opposite behaviour is observed; they express a faint interest in learning new languages and hold language diversity in a negative light.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".