« Ne dites pas… Dites avec élégance… » : la construction de l’autorité déontique dans le discours prescriptif des premières chroniques de langage belges (1922-1956)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In French-speaking Belgium, language columnists were among the main representatives of a language correction movement. Because of their prescriptive approach which dominated from the birth of the genre in the early 20th century until the 1980s, language columns helped to fuel the conflictual relationship Belgians have long had with their variety of French. The aim of this article is to examine the discursive construction of deontic authority in prescriptive Belgian language columns. More specifically, we will focus on the linguistic means used by columnists to position themselves about the actions to be taken in terms of ‘good’ language use. Within this framework, the uses promoted can be described as more or less obligatory, optional, permitted or prohibited. The qualitative analysis is based on a corpus of texts published between 1922 and 1956 in the language columns of Joseph Deharveng and Philippe Baiwir.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".