Linguistic Markers Evidence Crossreference

Generated: October 23, 2025 at 04:55 AM

Chapter 1 Linguistic Analysis

Linguistic Markers Evidence Cross-Reference

Created: 2025-01-04 Purpose: Document validated linguistic patterns for Chapter 1, Section 1.3.5 de Certeau framing

Executive Summary: Critical Theoretical Revision Required

Original Hypothesis: CUNY students use more tactical language (de Certeau’s “tactics”) to navigate institutional constraints.

Actual Finding: CUNY students use more barrier/constraint language and less tactical/strategic language than elite peers.

This finding challenges the de Certeau framework as currently applied and requires theoretical revision.

Validated Statistics

Overall Pattern Summary

Category	CUNY Rate	Columbia Rate	NYU Rate	CUNY/Columbia	CUNY/NYU
Barrier Phrases	49.54 per 10K	29.47 per 10K	30.88 per 10K	1.68x	1.60x
Tactical Navigation	15.84 per 10K	24.52 per 10K	15.13 per 10K	0.65x	1.05x
Temporal/Conditional	4.58 per 10K	4.60 per 10K	2.76 per 10K	1.00x	1.66x

Key Insight: CUNY uses 1.68x MORE barrier language but 0.65x LESS tactical language than Columbia.

Most Distinctive CUNY Patterns (Validated)

Top 5 CUNY/Columbia Ratios:

“have to go in person” - 16.37x (3.77 vs 0.23 per 10K)
“cannot enroll” - ∞ (1.93 vs 0.00 per 10K)
“no way to” - 3.90x (0.90 vs 0.23 per 10K)
“too late to” - 2.92x (2.02 vs 0.69 per 10K)
“stuck with” - 2.34x (3.50 vs 1.50 per 10K)

Evidence Examples:

“have to go in person” (comment_lc9ld5i):

“You must stay on them! I even have to go in person. If you’re looking to get into a program meet with…”

“cannot enroll” (comment_fxjlq55):

“What they do is put a bursar hold which means you cannot register for classes for the next semester but that doesn’t…”

“too late to” / “by the time” (comment_lo8vpn3):

“The college arranged my orientation pretty late and by the time I registered for classes, most of them I wanted were all full…”

“stuck with” (comment_n81kl2x):

“Ur stuck with this professor unless someone drops from the other section.”

“no way to” (comment_jo4hws9):

“Everything sums up these points- (1) There is no way to get TAP, unless you qualify for it (2) Pell grant mo…”

Patterns That CONTRADICT Original Hypothesis

Tactical Language is LOWER at CUNY (Surprising):

Phrase	CUNY/Columbia	CUNY/NYU	Interpretation
“workaround/get around”	0.62x	0.90x	Elite students frame problems as solvable through tactics
“trick/hack”	0.62x	0.52x	Elite students share optimization strategies
“they don’t tell you”	0.17x	0.32x	Elite students frame institutional opacity as navigable
“can’t afford”	0.75x	0.46x	Private school students discuss cost more openly

Corrected Linguistic Marker Claims for Chapter 1

❌ REMOVE or REVISE:

Current Claim (Line 263): “The linguistic marker ‘won’t be able to’ (13.63x more frequent at CUNY) signals tactical thinking”

Problems:

Ratio is 1.60x, not 13.63x
“Won’t be able to” signals constraint, not tactics
Pattern aligns with barrier language (1.68x), not tactical language (0.65x)

✅ VALIDATED PATTERNS to ADD:

Barrier Language (1.68x more frequent):

“have to go in person” (16.37x) - physical navigation burden
“cannot enroll” (unique to CUNY vs Columbia) - systemic enrollment barriers
“too late to” (2.92x-3.65x) - temporal constraints
“stuck with” (2.34x) - lack of alternatives
“no way to” (3.90x) - absence of institutional channels

Interpretation: CUNY discourse reflects structural constraints requiring physical presence, creating temporal bottlenecks, and offering fewer alternatives.

Theoretical Implications for Chapter 1, Section 1.3.5

De Certeau Framework Requires Revision

Original Application:

Strategies (institutional) vs Tactics (user workarounds)
Framed CUNY students as tactical agents navigating through “tricks” and “hacks”

Actual Pattern:

CUNY students use LESS explicit tactical language than elite peers
CUNY discourse emphasizes mandatory compliance (“have to go in person”) not strategic optimization
Elite students frame navigation as agency-driven; CUNY students describe structural constraints

Recommended Theoretical Reframing

Option 1: Revise de Certeau application

CUNY students deploy tactics implicitly (shopping cart trick exists) but discuss constraints explicitly
Elite students have luxury of framing navigation as strategic game
Working-class discourse focuses on barriers because consequences of failure are higher

Option 2: Add Bourdieu’s habitus/capital framework

Tactical language itself is form of cultural capital
CUNY students navigate equally tactically but lack discourse of optimization
“Have to” vs “the trick is” reflects differential access to frames of agency

Option 3: Emphasize structural violence (Gilmore)

Linguistic patterns reveal differential institutional designs
CUNY requires physical presence (16x); elite schools allow digital navigation
Barrier language documents organized abandonment, not lack of tactical awareness

Evidence for Revised Chapter 1 Section 1.3.5

Current De Certeau Section (Lines 259-263):

Keep:

comment_ewlyuik (shopping cart trick) - shows tactics exist
comment_fhdvsyc (ePermit “secret weapon”) - shows underground knowledge
comment_lefsdw7 (waitlist email template) - shows tactical deployment

Add:

Linguistic analysis showing constraint language (1.68x) vs tactical language (0.65x)
Evidence of “have to go in person” (16.37x) as structural requirement
Comparison: elite students use “workaround” (1.61x more than CUNY), CUNY students use “have to wait” (1.79x-2.22x more than elite)

Revise:

“Won’t be able to” signals barrier awareness, not tactical orientation
Reframe tactics as responses to constraints documented through barrier language
Add note that tactical sharing happens despite lower tactical language frequency

New Framing Paragraph:

“CUNY students navigate institutional barriers tactically (shopping cart tricks, ePermit arbitrage) but their discourse emphasizes constraints rather than strategies. While comment_ewlyuik provides explicit tactical guides, CUNY students are 16.37x more likely to discuss ‘have to go in person’ barriers and 2.92x more likely to frame problems as ‘too late to’ resolve. In contrast, Columbia students use ‘workaround’ and ‘hack’ language 1.61x more frequently, framing navigation as optimization rather than compliance. This linguistic difference reveals how institutional designs create differential navigation burdens: CUNY requires physical presence and creates temporal bottlenecks, while elite institutions allow digital navigation and strategic planning.”

Data Sources and Validation

Databases Analyzed:

CUNY: 222,852 comments
Columbia: 86,876 comments
NYU: 144,759 comments

Methodology:

Case-insensitive phrase searches
Normalized to per 10,000 comments for comparison
Validated through multiple query approaches

Files:

Action Items for Chapter Revision

✅ Correct “won’t be able to”: 13.63x → 1.60x
⚠️ Reframe de Certeau section: Add structural constraint context
✅ Add validated distinctive patterns: “have to go in person” (16.37x), “too late to” (2.92x)
⚠️ Address theoretical tension: Why do CUNY students use less tactical language but deploy more tactics?
✅ Link to Gilmore’s organized abandonment: Barrier language documents institutional design choices

Research Chronicle Entry Recommended

Finding: Comprehensive linguistic analysis reveals CUNY students use 1.68x more barrier/constraint language but 0.65x less tactical/strategic language than Columbia. This challenges initial de Certeau framing.

Implication: Tactical sharing exists (shopping cart trick, ePermit) but discourse emphasizes structural constraints (“have to go in person” 16x more frequent). Elite students have luxury of framing navigation as strategic optimization; working-class students document mandatory compliance.

Theoretical Revision: Need to distinguish between deploying tactics (which CUNY students do) and framing navigation tactically (which elite students do more). Language patterns reveal institutional designs requiring differential physical/temporal burdens.

Document Created: 2025-01-04 Related Files:

Evidence References (8 items) ▶