Language Attitudes & Language Use: The Case of Joual in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at shedding light on the language attitudes and language use of Joual, a French variety spoken in Québec. The term Joual is used pejoratively and criticized by many throughout the province and the global francophone community as an incorrect or inferior form of French. However, the language remains resilient in that it continues to adapt to contemporary life and seeks to stop restrictions from the elite social class. Therefore, it argues that this linguistic variety emerged due to social factors and is a social phenomenon. The research conducted will first seek to define the origin of Joual and the definitions it has encountered. The objective is threefold: a) to examine the socio-historical context of linguistic struggles amongst francophones in Québec, b) the language attitudes that account for the reason behind the use of Joual, and c) to analyze the linguistic similarities and differences between Joual and “Standard” French. Joual is nevertheless a fundamental element of Québec identity, which deserves to be rid of its pejorative connotation and acknowledged as a language.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".