Bibliographic record
Abstract
I define bilingualism as a sociopolitical semiotic nexus of praxis cum ideology.1 In this nexus a certain lexico-grammatical space is perceived as divided into two different coded varieties. By this definition, monolingualism is a sociopolitical semiotic nexus of praxis cum ideology that perceives no such division. In linguistic theory this basic definition has been transformed in such a manner as to allow research to erase the praxis cum ideology component. Thus, bilingual phenomena are targeted as a juxtaposition of coded varieties warranting a certain kind of description. I base my analysis on the assumption that a great deal of what enters into the study of linguistic problems is actually a kind of ideology supported by various institutional or community structures. In handling bilingual phenomena we face two broad lines of linguistic ideology: that of the structuralist tradition which traces its theoretical principles from Descartes through Saussure to modern rationalism-positivism, and the alternative (and actually oppositional) trend of praxis-focused research. Even though this scheme may strike the reader as too simplifi ed, I argue that it grasps the principal points of relevance to an ongoing discourse on bilingualism. One main goal of this chapter is to explore various approaches to praxis in sociological theory, in order to see how linguistic description is portrayed in such theoretical schemes, and what such approaches buy us for comprehending bilingualism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".