Multilingual Montreal: Listening in on the Language Practices of Young Montrealers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT/RESUME In Montreal, the number of young bilinguals and trilinguals is on the increase, contributing to an increasingly complex language dynamic and, possibly, the breakdown of traditional linguistic frontiers and a significant change in intergroup relations. In this study, we look at how languages are used by young Montrealers in different types of settings, geographic zones, and social networks. Data collected through 190 short in Situ observations reveals that Montreal remains a divided geographically into linguistic zones. Young Montrealers, however, are not bound by their neighborhoods, rather, they move across the for work, schooling, and leisure activities. Observations of sites in respect to their social function suggests that factors other than geography appear to influence language practices. Within institutional settings, language practices tend to be more conservative. Informal settings, such as cafes and large public events, as as spaces less clearly identified with a language community, are more likely to be characterized by bilingual and multilingual practices. Our observations clearly indicate the complexity of the language practices of young Montrealers and the need for a dynamic approach to the study of language use. We propose an approach that follows individuals through the different settings and social networks they traverse in the course of a day, as as one that takes into account the power relations underlying interactions. ********** Les jeunes Montrealis bilingues et trilingues sont de plus en plus nombreux. Ils rendent compte de I'evolution des relations intergroupes et appellent remise en question des frontieres linguistiques traditionnelles. L'etude des pratiques langgieres de jeunes dans differents milieux montrealais (contextes varies, quartiers et reseaux sociaux) et les 190 situations d'observations documentees revelent un contexte urbain ou les espaces geographiques demeurent linguistiquement structures. Ces 'zones' linguistiques sont neanmoins traversees quitidiennement par les jeunes qui frequentent, de par la ville, ecoles, travail, lieux de loisirs varies. Et de fait, les pratiques languagieres observees temoignent d'une variabilite de profils bien au dela des structures linguistiques associes tel ou tel lieu urbain. En contexte formel par exemple (tel institution Governmentale). les pratiques langagieres seraientplus conservatrices et orientees vers un groupe linguistiue donne. En contexte informel (cafes, evenements publics) ou dans des circonstances ou l'effet hegemonique d'un groupe est moins present, les pratiques sont diversifiees, souvent bilingues ou multilingues. Enfin, les pratiques langagieres quotidiennes mises a jour, dans variabilite de contextes La fois geographiques, sociaux et relationnels, temoignent de dynamiques langagieres complexes inscrites dans des interactions traversees par des relations de pouvoir. FRENCH MONTREAL, MULTILINGUAL MONTREAL? Greater Montreal, with its population of over three million, is home to roughly 47 percent of the population of Quebec. Approximately 67 percent of Montrealers speak French as a first language, 12 percent English, and 18.5 percent a first language that is neither French nor English (Statistics Canada 2001). Despite the demographic weight of the Francophone population, Montreal in the 1 960s was described as well on its way to becoming a multicultural English-speaking city (Levine 1990), revealing to what degree English was dominant (1) in the (Government of Canada 1969; Gouvernement du Quebec 1972). This description no longer holds today, thanks to a rapid transformation of the language dynamics in Montreal since Quebec's Quiet Revolution. In the late 1960s, the political mobilization of the Francophone population around language brought about efforts to make Montreal une ville francaise, a that speaks French. …
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".