MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

French loanwords in Quebec English: Bilingualism, language proficiency and intraregional variation

2025· article· en· W4413806087 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Valery Kh. Urikhanian

Bibliographic record

VenueIzvestiya of Saratov University Philology Journalism · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscience of multilingualismVariation (astronomy)LinguisticsPhysicsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines the issues associated with the difference in the relative frequency of French loanwords in Quebec English in Montreal and other cities of this Canadian province. The existing studies note that the loanwords with fewer occurrences are more widely used outside Montreal, the largest and most bilingual city in Quebec. The study illustrates this phenomenon with regard to the use of French loanwords in X (formerly Twitter) publications for the period from 2014 to 2024. It provides statistics on the use of various French loanwords in Montreal, as well as in the other major cities of the province: Quebec City, Saguenay, Gatineau, Sherbrooke and Trois-Rivières. The research seeks to explain this counterintuitive observation, as bilingualism is generally thought to facilitate and encourage borrowing. To this end, the paper discusses the nature of bilingualism in Quebec, its historical and cultural origins, as well as the geographical and demographic boundaries for the different levels of bilingualism and the English language proficiency in the province. The study concludes that less frequent French loanwords are relatively more widely used in Quebec outside Montreal because bilinguals there, speaking almost exclusively French in everyday life, tend to have it as their dominant language and therefore rely on French as a mediator when expressing concepts in English.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 venueIzvestiya of Saratov University Philology JournalismSame topicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and IdentityFrench-language works237,207