In the Margins: German Language Varieties in L2 German Textbooks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates how German as a second language (L2) textbooks construct the German language through images, layout, written and spoken language. Multimodal discourse analysis (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006) and critical discourse analysis (van Dijk, 1993) serve to uncover underlying ideologies and power relations in two L2 German textbook series: studio d and DaF kompakt neu. Findings show the hidden curriculum reflecting patterns of marginalization and German hegemony: Although textbooks advertise themselves as introductions to life in German-speaking countries, Germany is featured as the default setting, whereas other German-speaking countries are often confined to chapters with special spotlight on them. The “German language” is understood as German Standard German, the existence of other German national standards downplayed, and languages other than German erased. Such patterns of German hegemony are more pronounced in the older textbook series, but not absent in the newer. Considering the clear efforts to broaden the definition of German according to recommendations to teach German as a pluricentric language, underlying ideologies in L2 German teaching need to be examined and discussed before they can be overcome. This paper will be of interest to scholars in applied linguistics as well as textbook authors and instructors.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it