Exploring past and present layers of multilingualism in Flemish-emigrant writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article aims to contribute to the study of Belgian Dutch as an immigrant language in North America. It does so with the specific hypothesis that the pre-migration sociolinguistic and language political context in migrants’ home countries plays an important role, in particular with regard to societal multilingualism, as underlying layers of multilingualism can have an impact on the post-migration contact situation. Using the diary of a Flemish missionary who moved to Canada in 1886 as our main source, both Dutch-French and Dutch-English language contact are charted over a 25-year time span, with specific attention to lexical borrowing. We discuss the impact of a number of mostly language-internal variables on the relative frequency of lexical borrowing from each source language (e.g., semantic field, part of speech, level of integration in the target language, luxury versus necessary loans), revealing highly divergent borrowing profiles for French and English. The article rounds off by assessing the explanatory value of the pre-migration sociolinguistic context of Belgian Dutch, for the language patterns observed in this specific ego-document, discussing the interaction between past and present layers of language contact.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".