Review of Normative Language Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is a welcome addition to the literature on language policy. The authors are mainly concerned with providing an axiological account of normativity in language, using the province of Québec as a case study to explore the extent to which normativity can be morally justified in certain contexts. This focus represents a significant departure from the mainly descriptive and ontological accounts of implicit and explicit policy that are current in many strands of language-policy research. In fact, the focus of the book emerges from the authors’ view that contemporary language-policy scholarship maintains a strongly descriptive and empirical character, with the ‘ought’ of language in society (i.e. normativity) often not a central concern. Indeed, they argue that normativity in language is often associated with illegitimate power and coercion, and is thus regarded negatively, with authors criticising it but not offering insights into how things might be improved.\nAn interdisciplinary approach is adopted here, drawing mainly on literature from sociolinguistics and normative political philosophy, in order to argue for a more nuanced view of prescriptivism. The authors contend that normativity is not inherently wrong in and of itself. Ultimately, they argue for a research agenda that includes an examination of the ethics and morality of normative language policy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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 teacher head, 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".