Identity as a Function of Resistance to Lexical Priming in Adult Language Learners on Facebook
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This presentation draws on the interpretive frameworks of discursive psychology (Edwards & Potter, 1992) and conversation analysis (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008) to provide a snapshot of identity formation among adult ESL students taking part in a Facebook discussion group. It does so by offering a microanalysis of a twelve-turn discussion thread responding to the poll question how important is it for your children to speak and write in your first language in Canada? The focus of analysis is on the extent to which respondents adhere to the lexical priming (Hoey, 2005) in the poll, specifically, to what extent do students reiterate or resist the topic in their use of the most lexically significant items in the poll? The data suggest an intriguing pattern whereby resistance to the priming in the poll question and poll response options is most pronounced for students demonstrating either the strongest or weakest English language proficiency relative to the entire group. These particular students are thus most likely to deploy their responses in an unscripted direction. The presentation proposes an assessment of the implications of this phenomenon for the identities made possible or precluded.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".