Language Attitudes among Adolescents in Montreal: Potential Lessons for Language Planning in Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last four decades, numerous laws have been implemented with the aim of strengthening the position of French in Québec. Nevertheless, the French language remains threatened – firstly due to the status of English as the global lingua franca, and secondly due to its role as the language of upward mobility in North America at large. Consequently, there are ongoing debates regarding the need for new language planning measures to protect and promote French. Some of the most prominent proposals in the recent past intended to limit access to Québec's English-speaking collèges d'enseignement général et professionnel, typically abbreviated to cégeps. The aim of these proposals was to prevent young francophones and allophones from integrating socially and professionally into the anglophone community. However, it was unclear whether such proposals would have the necessary attitudinal support at the grassroots level to be successful. This article thus presents the findings of a study which made use of a questionnaire and a matched-guise experiment to elicit the language attitudes of 147 francophone, anglophone and allophone adolescents in Montreal. Considering the findings of this study, the article argues that status and acquisition planning measures limiting access to English-speaking cégeps would likely be unsuccessful due to lacking attitudinal support, and that prestige planning measures would be a more feasible means of protecting and promoting the French language in Québec.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".