A qualitative investigation of the experience of accent stigmatisation among native and nonnative French speakers in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decades of language attitudes research have documented negative evaluations of non-standard speakers. However, fewer studies have investigated the experience of stigmatization from the perspective of the non-standard speakers themselves. The study aims to explore the following questions: (1) What perception do speakers hold of their accent? (2) What does perceived accent discrimination look like? (3) How do stigmatized speakers respond to discriminatory experiences? Semistructured interviews were conducted among 36 (native, n=18; non-native, n=18) French-speaking participants in Canada. Participants were systematically selected from three regions in Canada for each group, capturing the experiences of nonstandard speakers from areas with varying levels of French ethnolinguistic vitality. The results show that (1) attitudes towards one's accent often appear to reinforce or diminish pride in one's way of speaking, and feelings of belonging or language competency; (2) accent stigmatization among French speakers in Canada is perceived by many non-standard speakers, and discrimination is perceived to occur in various settings and to take multiple forms; (3) behavioural, cognitive and affective responses to and consequences of discrimination are identified.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".