Anglophone, Peewee, Two-four... Are Canadianisms Acquired by ESL Learners in Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the extent to which ESL learners studying in Canada acquire Canadianisms. Two instruments were used to assess the effect of posited variables on this acquisition: a lexical survey administered to 103 ESL learners in Kingston, Ontario; and a questionnaire about resources, teaching methods, and attitudes administered to their instructors. Results indicate that ESL learners' knowledge of Canadianisms is limited. No correlation exists between the time learners have spent in Canada and their knowledge of Canadianisms. The more relevant a Canadianism is to their life, the more likely ESL learners in Canada are to acquire it. Level of English proficiency does correlate positively with the acquisition of Canadianisms, but the variables of learners' L1 background and classroom English training are not shown to be significant. Two additional findings of this study deserve further attention. First, ESL instructors' attitudes toward teaching Canadianisms vary widely. Second, lexical items specific to a particular variety of a language - for example, the Canadian English vocabulary sampled in this study - may make manifest the assumptions and knowledge tacitly shared in a cultural group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".