A "Bill 101" in Switzerland? Language planning in the canton of Jura
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although multilingual, Switzerland has rarely been seen as a state with a strong tradition of language planning; quite the opposite. This article will focus on one region of French-speaking Switzerland, the canton of Jura, a region formerly attached to the canton of Bern and which became the 23rd Swiss canton in 1979. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Jura autonomist movement based part of its argumentation for the creation of a new state within the Swiss confederation on language ideologies. It is of great interest to note that, once the new canton had been constituted, questions of language planning were raised, mostly by actors who had been influential in the autonomist movement. First, the writing of the canton's new constitution gave rise to a series of questions about language. Jura's constitution is the first constitution of a monolingual canton dealing with language issues. Moreover, a motion was passed at the Parliament in 1985 and is the base for a new law about the "use of the French language" that has recently been accepted by the Parliament. Why is the canton of Jura the sole monolingual Swiss canton with such a language law? Why is the 1985 project close in its content to the famous Bill 101 from Quebec? Why is it felt that French is threatened in the Jura and needs a law to help protect and illustrate it? Analysing the situation from a critical sociolinguistics perspective, this article will focus on the language ideologies put forward in these laws (the constitution, the draft law from the 1980s and the new law written in the twenty-first century) and the power issues at work in this context.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".