ENGLISH BORROWINGS IN FRENCH IN THE ASPECT OF CANADIAN BILLINGVISM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines English borrowings into French in the context of Canadian bilingualism in connection with Canadian language policy, which combines several centralized language policies implemented by the federal government and regional policies pursued by provincial governments, including Quebec. To understand and analyze such a linguistic phenomenon, the article briefly discusses the historical causes of Canadian bilingualism. The study focuses on the lexical, grammatical and phonetic features of Canadian French and suggests that borrowing from both British and American versions of English into French has led to a unique combination that can only be identified as an independent phenomenon. The characteristics of Canadian French vocabulary, spelling, and grammar discussed in this article illustrate that Canadian French cannot be fully identified with any other type of French. The Canadian version of the French language is expressive, authentic, including through borrowings from the English language. The study emphasizes that the Canadian version of the French language, provided constant interaction with the English language, is learned naturally, and the rules naturally. Bilingual speakers agree on universal rules without knowing them, share and use these rules, but never clearly study them, because it seems impossible to teach how to change the code and maintain the structural integrity of the statement. The findings contradict the expectation that borrowed words harm the language that borrows them, so it was found that bilingual speakers who speak both English and French implicitly understand and use the rules of both languages, and borrowing and switching codes do not lead to language erosion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".