"Baby, Te Amo": Code Switching as a Way to Develop and Limit Intimacy in Multilingual, Romantic Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores code switching between individuals involved in multilingual, romantic relationship, these being defined as relationships in which at least one partner speaks at least one other language. Grounded in previous research in the field of code switching but departing from its concentration on macrosocial phenomenon and rather focusing on language alternation in a much more intimate setting, this study will answer the following questions: what forms does code switching take among these couples? What does it mean to code-switch for these romantic couples? Lastly, what relational function does code switching play? By conducting ethnographic interviews with five individuals and two couples and analyzing the data through Spradley’s (1980) developmental research sequence, five forms of code switching emerged. Meanings of these code-switches include consideration, possessing authority in the relationship, professional or romantic identity, emotional conveyance, identity performance, and secrecy. The relational function that these meanings of code switching play among these couples is ascertained as being a way to increase or limit intimacy. Finally, implications for relationships of this type are discussed as well as further directions for studies in this field.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".