Endorsing a Standard Language Ideology Complex moderates associations between LX use and proficiency among French learners in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion that LX (any additional language learned after the period when the initial language(s) were established) use relates to higher LX proficiency is well-established. However, there are individual differences in how beneficial LX use is for second language acquisition. This work tests the hypothesis that greater endorsement of a Standard Language Ideology Complex diminishes the positive association between LX use and proficiency among French learners in naturalistic settings in Canada. Participants (N = 206) completed an online cross-sectional survey. The results show that greater French use was more weakly related to greater proficiency (LexTale scores) for participants who strongly endorsed a Standard Language Ideology Complex than for those who endorsed this ideology complex less strongly. This moderation effect was the same in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. These results have practical implications for LX teaching. This work contributes to a very small body of work on the role of learners’ personally-held ideologies in SLA – contrasting with the massive literature on macro-aspects of language ideologies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".