BLC mini-series: Tools to document bilingual experiences
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Bilingual experiences are complex and dynamic (Grosjean, 2013).The complexity reflects the rich language experiences an individual accumulates over a lifetime, and the dynamicity represents how the complexity changes across different language interaction contexts.Essential to understanding the cognitive and linguistic consequences of bilingual experience, the experience of bilingualism ought to be documented.Currently, we know that bilingualism can be captured in multiple dimensions, such as onset age of second language (L2) exposure (see Birdsong, 2018 for a recent review), language dominance (Unsworth, Chondrogianni & Skarabela, 2018), first and second language proficiency (Pérez, Hansen & Bajo, 2019), or the learning context in which L2 acquisition occurs (Montrul, 2019).Researchers in the field use different tools to document language experiences, providing quantity and quality of language acquisition history, daily usage, or home exposure through multiple languages for children and adults.Given the interdisciplinary nature of bilingualism research, if these tools are published at all, they are dispersed across different journals and as appendices of articles.The main purpose of this mini-series is to collect these tools for researchers to choose and adapt.In this mini-series, we have collected five contributions from researchers from the U.S. and Canada who have invested in developing tools for research purposes.These contributions present tools that document bilingual experience from infancy to senior adulthood.We see the mini-series as an opportunity to collectively report tools researchers use to document participants' bilingual experience.These tools will be a systematic collection for students and emerging researchers interested in pursuing research in bilingualism.Recognizing the diverse social contexts where bilingualism occurs is important.Bilingualism, like other experiences, does not happen in a vacuum.The mini-series has included five contributions from research teams in North America.Their tools are designed and grounded in an environment where there is a societal dominant languagenamely, Englishexcept for Byers-Heinlein et al. (Byers-Heinlein, Schott, Gonzalez-Barrero, Brouillard, Dubé, Jardak, Laoun-Rubenstein, Mastroberardino, Morin-Lessard, Pour Iliaei, Salama-Siroishka & Tamay, 2020): her work is situated in Montreal, Canada, where English and French are present in the community.In addition to documenting individual participants' language, describing the societal language use and contact will enrich the interpretation of participant characteristics captured by these tools.Currently, in research adopting a monolingualbilingual comparison, the information about societal language context is not often documented (Surrain & Luk, 2019).Furthermore, new dimensions, such as language entropy and capturing the social interactions of bilinguals, should be considered to supplement the conventional qualifiers of bilingualism (Gullifer & Titone, 2020; Gullifer, Kousaie, Gilbert, Grant, Giroud, Coulter, Klein, Baum, Phillips & Titone, accepted).The first contribution, by Byers-Heinlein et al. ( 2020), has shared a structured interview designed to document infants' language experience, the Multilingual Approach to Parent Language Estimates (MAPLE).In the contribution, Byers-Heinlein et al. (2020) address the key descriptors to document in the interview, as well as interview practices that are engaging, but respectful.Finally, the contribution ends with possible effects that may influence the interpretation of parental reports of children's language environment.Since young children spend a significant amount of time at school, characterizing children's school environment can supplement information captured from home language environment.Castro, Scheffner Hammer, Franco, Cycyk, Scarpino, and Burchinal (2020) share the Center for Early Care and Education Research -Dual Language Learners (CECER-DLL) Child and Family, and Teacher Questionnaires.In this questionnaire, parents and teachers are proxies for capturing young children's home and school language environment.The tool was designed with Spanish-English bilingual families in the U.S. in mind.Castro et al. ( 2020) supplement this tool with a validation study using child assessments as correlates.The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q) was first published in 2007 (Marian, Blumenfeld & Kaushanskaya, 2007).Since its publication, LEAP-Q has been used extensively in research involving bilinguals.This tool has been translated to 22 different languages, adapting to different dialects and cultural contexts.This tool reflects the collective effort in the field to improve the necessary linguistic sensitivity when conducting research with
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,039 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,019 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,117 | 0,069 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».