MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387610174 · doi:10.1017/s0959269523000133

Partial interrogatives in Quebec French: a diachronic look at a spreading variant

2023· article· en· W4387610174 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sandrine Tailleur

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of French Language Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsInterrogativeInterrogative wordFrenchInterrogationHistoryVariation (astronomy)LinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study offers a diachronic look (1840-today) into the direct partial interrogation system in Quebec French. The main goals are to provide empirical evidence of the rise of the in situ variant within the Quebec French system, and to understand how the system evolved over centuries, independently from Hexagonal French. The data (based on more than 1600 tokens) show that the emergence of the in situ variant seems to depend on the wh word itself, but its usage seems to be more important in Montreal. There are a few examples of in situ found before the 1970s, but this variant was never publicly condemned nor associated to “bad usage”. This article, inspired by a historical sociolinguistics approach, provides much needed original data from five different corpora, both (written) historical and (oral) contemporary, and shows that the partial interrogative system in Quebec is not stable over time. The Montreal data suggests a system evolving differently in this city than in other regions of the province, and the data from each wh word show that interrogatives with comment still only marginally allow the in situ variant. Cette étude offre un portrait diachronique (1840 à aujourd’hui) global de la variation à l’intérieur du système d’interrogation partielle directe en français québécois. L’objectif principal est de contribuer de façon empirique à la compréhension du développement de la variante in situ en français du Québec, et d’en arriver à montrer l’évolution, indépendante de celle ayant lieu en France, sur plus d’un siècle. Nos données (plus de 1600 occurrences) montrent que l’émergence de la variante in situ dépend du mot wh utilisé, et qu’elle semble plus avancée à Montréal qu’ailleurs. Nous avons trouvé quelques traces de la variante in situ avant 1970 dans les documents métalinguistiques, et montrons que cette variante n’a jamais été condamnée. Le présent article s’inscrit dans une approche de sociolinguistique historique et fournit des données originales, tirées de corpus historique (écrit) et contemporains (oraux). Ce portrait quantitatif montre à quel point le système d’interrogation directe partielle n’est pas stable dans le temps, et suggère une évolution dans la communauté montréalaise qui se distingue des autres communautés étudiées. Le mot interrogatif comment résiste encore à la variante in situ, mais les taux globaux d’utilisation nous permettent de considérer la variante in situ comme faisant partie intégrante de l’interrogation en français québécois oral.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of French Language StudiesSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207