Raising Bilingual and Trilingual Children: Japanese Immigrant Parents' Child-Rearing Experiences
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This research coiiected and documented the voices of six Japanese immigran parents who raised or are raising their chiidren as bi-and trilinguals in Toronto, Canada It is an atternpt to show the intricacies and complexities behind the language choice immigrant parents make on behalf of their children.In order to reflect the nch narratives of these parents, a life history research method was chosen.Life history research aliows the researcher to examine the people's stories by placing them in a larger social framework This study shows that the major motivating factor behind choosing to use L1 (i.e., Japanese) at home is the desire, on the part of immigrant parents, to maintain strong farnily bonding.This in turn mplies that L 1 oraI communication, which is a vital tool for family cohesion, is fostered and encouraged, but the development of L1 written skills is, in some cases, not given equal attention.Furthemore, when the goal is to achieve communication and not necessarily to nurture bilingual development, important elements such as elevated vocabuiary usage is not active1 y sought by the parents.Some parents seemed to have fallen victirns of the myth about second language acquisition (SLA) that their insistence on L 1 maintenance could be burdensome or damaging to their children.The desire for their children's academic success deters some parents fiom actively pursuing LI maintenance or considering L3 leaniing.In fact, in inteniiews sorne parents shared their feelings of guilt for choosing to raise their children using L1 at home, blaming their own limited L2.Yet their consistent use of L1 is a vital instrument in successful bilingual child-rearing.It is unfortmate to see how immigrant parents.given more-or-less successful biiingual child-rearing experiences, are caught in an inescapable predicarnent of guilt.As far as the L 1 maintenance and L2 leaniing was concemed, a clear division of labour was found.Home was where the L1 was fostered and used with the chikiren, and the school was where the chiidren's L2 was taught.This clear schism functioned as a doubleedged sword: The exclusive use of L1 by the parents seemed to endorse their Japanese identity and helped children to focus on their LI.Similarly, at school, the consistent and continuous L2 usage helped the children's SLA.However, in many cases parents' adherence to L1 and their Limited L2 and the school's focus only on L2 skills led to the alienation of the parents from the school, leading, in mm, to non-communication between the two.Some parents believed that the sharp division also contributed to a lack of development of certain language skiiis in L1 and limiteci vocabulary growih in L2.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».