« J’aime right ton accent » : approches de la linguistique anthropologique pour la conceptualisation des normes linguistiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall goal of this article is to contrast the different theorisations of norms in linguistics. Starting from the branches of structural linguistics, the article shows how linguistic norms are conceived in anthropological linguistics. Whereas the former separates linguistic usage from the speakers and tries to describe and analyse the linguistic structures which form different linguistic norms, the fields of anthropological linguistics as well as qualitative sociolinguistics and pragmatics focus on the contextually bound social functions and ideological implementations of the linguist signs that linguistic norms consist of. This way, linguistic norms can be understood more broadly as norms of conceiving and structuring social behaviour of which linguistic behaviour forms an integral part. Consequently, the social functionality of norms and the signs they consist of are theorised in this article. In order to demonstrate their social underpining, the example « J’aime right ton accent » in Acadian French will be analysed in more detail.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".