MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411238480 · doi:10.69760/egjlle.2500205

L'Influence des Anglicismes et Autres Emprunts Étrangers sur le Vocabulaire du Français Moderne : Analyse, Débats et Politiques Linguistiques

2025· article· fr· W4411238480 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mahsati Asgarova

Bibliographic record

VenueEuroGlobal Journal of Linguistics and Language Education. · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le français moderne est le fruit d'une évolution linguistique continue, marquée par des contacts incessants avec d'autres langues. Cet article examine l'impact des emprunts linguistiques, avec un accent particulier sur les anglicismes, qui sont devenus un phénomène prégnant au XXe et XXIe siècles. L'analyse explore la typologie des anglicismes (lexicaux, sémantiques, syntaxiques, morphologiques, graphiques, phonétiques et pseudo-anglicismes), en les distinguant des emprunts historiques issus du latin, du germanique, de l'arabe et de l'italien. Il est démontré que l'influence de l'anglais, propulsée par la mondialisation et les avancées technologiques, pénètre diverses strates de la structure linguistique du français. L'article aborde les débats contemporains sur l'intégration de ces emprunts, oscillant entre la perception d'un enrichissement et celle d'une menace pour l'identité linguistique. Une attention particulière est portée aux spécificités régionales, notamment la situation au Québec par rapport à la France métropolitaine. Enfin, les politiques linguistiques mises en œuvre par des institutions telles que l'Académie française et l'Office québécois de la langue française sont examinées, évaluant leur efficacité face à l'évolution rapide de la langue.

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)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuroGlobal Journal of Linguistics and Language Education.Same topicHistorical Linguistics and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207