Prestige and standard in Canadian English : Prestige and standard in Canadian English :
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey of the use of standard and prestige in general descriptions of English, and of Canadian English in particular, reveals terminological confusion caused by the similarity of the two concepts and by cultural differences among the national dialects being discussed. This work argues, however, that these concepts can and should be distinguished. Once working definitions for both terms are formulated, they are tested against data from the Survey of Vancouver English. Vancouver English reveals little or no evidence of prestige, defined as "that variety (or those forms) used by the highest socio-economic group and emulated by others." The absence of a highest socio-economic group sufficiently well established to provide forms for others to emulate may explain this result, since, in Vancouver, social homogeneity seems to complement the geographical homogeneity that typifies Canadian English. While Vancouver English does reveal evidence of standard, defined as "that variety used by the majority of speakers and typified by correctness," the evidence also suggests that the notion of standard may need to be refined. The effect of various social factors on correctness is analyzed in order to provide a more precise notion of what "correctness" reflects, and education is found to contribute significantly to correctness. Furthermore, consideration of the four processes of standardization -- selection, codification, elaboration of function and acceptance -- in Canadian English confirms the importance of education to standardization and suggests not only that a standard exists in Canadian English but also that Canadian English is a standard variety distinct from other varieties of English. Standard is thus redefined to reflect more directly the role of correctness and the centrality of the four processes to standardization. The study concludes with a brief reconsideration of standard and prestige in light of these Canadian findings and suggests directions for further research.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".