Native Language Attrition Among Immigrants
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study was a literature review, and it focused on native language attrition among immigrants. For many years, immigrant families have moved to places such as the United States and Europe as well as Canada because of war, abuse, persecution, environmental degradation, and poverty in their home countries. Once immigrant families arrived in their designated country, their children were placed in school. Due to the struggle with the language barrier, kids and adults quickly started to focus extensively on learning the English language. The research occurred due to parents' raised concerns regarding their children's inability to communicate in their first language (L1) with families after learning English. Having worked with adult language learners at Project English and Giving Plus Learning, I witnessed the rise in parents' frustration, concern, and confusion when their children could no longer speak, formulate sentences, or enjoy conversation with relatives in their home language. These parents did not understand why their children constantly spoke in English and rejected their native tongue. The literature review aimed to shed light on the significance of maintaining L1 among immigrants' families while learning and speaking English. The review brought together all the available resources related to my project topic in place, and the resources were evaluated closely. In the review, there were six essential themes divided into sections. Each chapter focused on the method and findings of the themes. The research studies highlighted that L1 attrition could occur instantly when the L1 is not being utilized. The studies showed that age plays a vital role in L1 loss because the earlier children were exposed to the English language, the higher the possibility of L1 deterioration, particularly with children who began English from age three to seven. Older children who spoke the native language from birth to age 12 and then learned English continued communicating in the L1 much better. The studies further pointed out that the English immersion environment helped immigrants practice and improve their communication in the L2. However, the L1 was hindered because immigrants' children had less opportunity to speak in the and more in L2 as if it was their L1.
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 | 0,001 |
| 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) | 0,007 | 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 ».