Bibliographic record
Abstract
French is often cited as the forerunner of, and model for, a very normative and ‘top-down’ managed language, following the language policy of an archetypal monolingual nation-state, be it France, Quebec or other French-speaking communities in the world: „[le francais est un] exemple assez peu controverse d‘une langue monocentrique“ (Bossong 1996, 614) This particular contribution is not going to prove the contrary. However, we will try to show that even the French language and the French-speaking nations are not as much of a monolithic block as they are frequently perceived to be. Over recent decades attitudes towards different varieties of French have changed. In other words, the history of French must take into account three different phases: (a) the elaboration, over the centuries, of the endoxa, that is the official ideology, fixed in the dominant discourse; (b) the emergence of other types of discourse, manifesting more or less opposite opinions and forms of destandardization; (c) the fact that different beliefs may co-exist, that contradictory voices can be heard simultaneously at certain moments and also struggle in the arena of public discourse, enabling the social representations to be polyphonic. This leads us to the question of whether or not a restandardization of French into different “national” varieties has already occurred or is occurring now. We will argue that French is as variational as other world languages, but that the myth of bon usage weighs heavily on the representations of the speakers of French. In addition, the concept of pluricentricity implies the existence of “centres”, normally national ones, with respective authorities and reference works, a condition which does not reflect the actual situation in the French-speaking world. Not only do none of the countries have French as an official language, or monolingual French, in addition there is also an epistemological problem with the ideology of pluricentrism that focuses on territorial communities in a world where communities of practice play a growing role. A shift of attention away from (standard) languages towards heterogeneous forms of languaging could be a solution to this problem.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".