Entre « bon usage » et colloquialisation : analyse des recommandations d’un manuel de journalisme contemporain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The starting point for this article is the question of whether newspaper language in France is subject to a colloquialisation process. The diglossic situation of contemporary French is characterised by a strict separation of written and spoken language and the prescriptive norm appears very stable, making a profound change unlikely. Nonetheless, it is not implausible to hypothesise that a specific transformation is occurring: namely, a colloquialisation, which pertains to these oral phenomena that are not regarded as deviations from the prescriptive norm. The present article provides an examination of the manner in which Yves Agnès approaches colloquialisation tendencies in his Manuel de journalisme. Aside from the explicit mention of the bon usage and the critique of the mauvais usage, the focus is directed towards the readability and recommendations for a creative writing style. The analysis demonstrates that the manual’s recommendations oscillate between puristic commentaries and a surprisingly liberal attitude regarding linguistic innovations.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".