Investigating attitudes towards a changing use of anglicisms in Quebec French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article investigates speakers’ attitudes towards the use of anglicisms in Quebec French, particularly verbs. The common practice in Quebec French is to morphologically integrate these anglicisms into the French language (e.g., il m'a ghosté). However, in recent years, some French-speaking Quebecers have been using the unintegrated forms (e.g., il m'a ghost). This change of practice for the use of English-origin verbs is a linguistic innovation that is emerging from young French speakers in the Montreal area (M-E Bouchard 2023a). To investigate attitudes towards the use of anglicisms (integrated and non-integrated forms), 675 French-speaking Quebecers were asked the following open-ended question: Do you have anything to say about the use of anglicisms in Quebec French? The current study consists of a qualitative analysis of the participants’ answers to this specific question. This study has found evidence of linguistic hierarchies between the use of anglicisms that are morphologically integrated and those that are not. The anglicisms that are not morphologically integrated into the French language are perceived by many participants as incorrect and as challenging communication and understanding between users and non-users of the unintegrated forms. Participants associate the use of the unintegrated forms with young people.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".