MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108686796 · doi:10.2458/cms.6543

Standard Language Hegemony in French Language Teaching in the United States

2020· article· en· W3108686796 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carol A. Chapelle

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical multilingualism studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoriographyHegemonyIdeologyFrenchImmigrationConstruct (python library)Standard languageSketchSociologyHistoryLinguisticsPolitical scienceLawPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the United States, the French of l’académie française and the culture of France (referred to as Standard French in this paper) has been valued by language educators to the near exclusion of North American French and culture. I construct a historiographical sketch by analyzing 1) primary sources written by French Canadians and their descendants in the United States, 2) secondary sources consisting of the historical accounts of French Canadian immigrants, linguistic descriptions of North American French, and historiography of language ideology in the United States, 3) artefacts produced by and for French language teachers in the United States including French textbooks and articles in the professional journals, 4) research investigating French Canadian influence in French language teaching, and 5) my experience in interacting with descendants of French Canadians in the United States. I illustrate how I used this range of resources to begin to construct a historiography that sheds light on the origin, resilience, and effects of standard language hegemony in French language teaching in the United States.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0220.020
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical multilingualism studiesSame topicHistorical Linguistics and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207