MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383822213 · doi:10.1111/gequ.12365

Are universities, and their language departments, now promoting new forms of linguistic indifference?

2023· article· en· W4383822213 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caroline L. Rieger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe German Quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsQuest University CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanIdeologySociologyHigher educationHegemonyAccountabilityPedagogyPromotion (chess)LinguisticsPolitical sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As previous sections of this forum illustrate, ostensibly multilingual practices and discourses are not immune to linguistic indifference. Nor does—in any domain whatsoever—a mere affirmative pivot to multiplicity solve the problem of indifference. The very ecologies of our university departments and programs, and the affordances and constraints that shape our work within them, have been contoured by pressures that often encourage linguistic indifference. In light of the institutional imperatives that might tacitly endorse such a posture, this contribution considers how German studies programs in Canada and the United States have responded to neoliberal paradigm shifts in higher education since the 1990s, where tallying “butts in seats” has been treated as the primary form of accountability. Demands to demonstrate high enrollments have led to the practice of teaching Germanistik in translation in English-speaking post-secondary institutions (Gilman; Hohendahl). Taking my home department at the University of British Columbia as an example, I argue that this practice of prioritizing courses taught in English has not been shown to foster increased interest in German studies as a major or minor area of study, even where such an Anglophone emphasis does bolster the cumulative student credit hours spent in individual courses. Meanwhile, though, the strategy has led to an inadvertent promotion of monolingual ideologies and English-language hegemony since the translatedness and translingual nature of texts and discourses are rarely centered in courses that are heralded as broadly accessible. Modern language programs have argued for decades that the teaching and learning of additional languages add to higher education the kind of value that otherwise cannot be achieved (Byrnes; Maxim; Pfeiffer). Yet we seem to be undermining those arguments when teaching our discipline monolingually in English. A German course taught in English cannot guide socio-, inter-, cross-, and transcultural literacy—the ability to see oneself through the cultural lens of others and through the cultural lens of another language—the way it does if the texts under consideration are read in the original German. Courses taught in translation do not afford adequate insights into how the language(s) we speak, hear, breathe, and live are intimately interwoven with how we experience the world, how we make sense of it, and how those language(s), in tandem with other sociocultural, socio-cognitive, and emotional aspects acquired with and mediated through those same language(s), condition us in our perceptions, choices, values and beliefs (Modern Language Association; Kramsch, Language). These experiential dimensions of transcultural and translingual learning (Kramsch, “Translingual”) go missing when the difference is only ever positioned as an object of study and never as a practical occasion to inhabit the world otherwise. Of course, students can be instructed or informed that all humans have the necessary anatomical equipment to see the color blue, but the word and concept of blue are required to actually see it. And yet, this descriptive approach to multilingualism can never approximate the experience of seeing blue for the first or the thousandth time. A parallel case can be made that grasping new concepts for the first time, through the ways they are conveyed in a new language or other semiotic system, is a powerful experience that affords us insights into the ways that language shapes who we are. At the same time, that experience opens up not just new worlds—literature taught in English does so as well, after all— but new ways of thinking-for-speaking, speaking-for-thinking, speaking-for-being (Slobin). In tandem with studying German cinema, literature, and thought as historical and cultural avatars, these multilingual insights translate into reflection on our own values and beliefs, seeking to respect and empathize with those of others, opening our minds to the plurality of languages, to the plurality of being.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0190.064
Scholarly communication0.0470.040
Open science0.0040.025
Research integrity0.0110.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe German QuarterlySame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207