Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviews 261 Reinke, Kristin, et Luc Ostiguy. Le français québécois d’aujourd’hui. Berlin: Gruyter, 2016. ISBN 978-11-034929-0. Pp. xiv + 182. The authors have given themselves the task of describing the history of the French language in Quebec, describing the language itself, and analyzing the various language laws that have been passed in that province, all in the slender space of 167 pages. They have succeeded admirably. Though written with German students in mind, this book is appropriate for any group, as there are no references to German-specific phenomena. The book targets students in French studies who do not know much about the fleurdelisé variety of French. The authors also assume that the reader has some notions of linguistic terminology, but they avoid overly specialized language. The book opens with an overview of the French presence in Quebec, from the founding of New France to Canada today. Chapter 2 focuses on the structure of the language itself, necessarily comparing and contrasting it with the français de référence, with emphasis on phonetics and the lexicon. There is also some discussion of social and geographical variation, as well as discussion of register. Chapter 3 covers the evolution of Québécois French, chapter 4 discusses attitudes toward the language, and chapter 5 details various language planning efforts and the laws they produced. Each chapter begins with a general introduction (Une typologie de normes and Qu’est-ce qu’une attitude sur la langue for chapter 4 and Quelques principes de base de l’aménagement linguistique for chapter 5) and then applies those principles to the situation in Quebec, giving a solid foundation for those students who want to further pursue the topic on their own. Finally, there are comprehension and analysis questions after the chapters.Again, these questions do not make reference to German- or European-specific phenomena, so they are useful for a North American audience. Chapters 4 and 5 are especially solid, giving a good overview of topics that are not usually covered in most introductory linguistics classes. However, chapter 2, on the structure of the language itself, is probably the weakest. There is some inconsistency in orthography, with an overuse of the apostrophe to show a dropped e-caduc: Qu’est-c’que c’est beau (33) in some instances, whereas normal orthography is used in others (the list of sacres on p. 48); or it is not clear what the apostrophe refers to: al’ a envie de dormir (62) or Donne-moiz ’en (64). Char appears on a list of Anglicisms (51), even though it is the stereotypical example for those who would argue that Québécois French is an archaic version of French. These are minor quibbles, however, in an overall excellent contribution to expanding knowledge about this important variety of French. Teachers and students in upper-division French classes will find this a useful and accessible overview of Québécois French. Arizona State University Helene Ossipov ...
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.007 |
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".