Lʼemploi des anglicismes de la mode et les recommandations officielles : étude des usages basée sur des outils linguistiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, French has been a significant international language, with its influence apparent in global vocabulary borrowings. However, by the latter half of the 20th century, geopolitical shifts saw English assuming the role of the global lingua franca, thereby influencing various languages, including French. The fashion industry vividly displays this shift in French vocabulary. In earlier centuries, French dominated fashion terminology, influencing even Czech with words like “kravata” (cravate) and “bižutérie” (bijouterie). Presently, as English gains dominance in global communication, there is a surge in Anglicisms in French. Designers now frequently use English-based neologisms, believing them to heighten product appeal. France’s advanced linguistic policy, led by the Commission d’enrichissement de la langue française, works to counter this trend by providing native French equivalents, especially in economic, legal, and scientific fields. Interestingly, while Quebec’s linguistic body works in tandem with France’s, there are differences, like the term for “hashtag”: France recommends “mot-dièse” whereas Quebec suggests “mot-clic”. This paper aims to contrast the use of fashion-related Anglicisms and their official recommendations across varied linguistic tools.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".