Cultural Identity and Code-switching among Immigrant Chinese Students, Parents and Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language may be used to communicate, learn, and express identity.Adopting Chinese schools as a focal point, this dissertation explored how Chinese-Canadians establish their cultural identity through code-switching.This dissertation was guided by four research questions: (1) How is the prevalence of code-switching among Chinese teachers, parents and students at home and in school?(2) How do the teachers, parents and students perceive and compare the communicative, learning and identity-reflective functions of language?(3) How do they form their cultural identity through language use and code-switching?(4) What do they understand as, the relationship between language uselcode-switching and identity formation?Several types of data were gathered: Three Canadian specialists in Chinese language education were interviewed; 203 students were recruited from six Chinese language schools in Greater Vancouver to answer a structured questionnaire; eight triplets of parents, teachers and students participated in class observations, home visits, and group discussions; and data were gathered from students' self tape-recording, written logs and instant messages.It was found that the students did the most between-turns code-switching, while the parents did less and the teachers did the least amount of code-switching.Most participants considered the communicative function of language the most important, the learning function less important and the identity-reflective function the least important.Some participants suggested that language may serve different h c t i o n s simultaneously.I proposed that identity formation is dynamic and multi-faceted.The questionnaire results indicated that most students were proud of their Chinese cultural identity although the parents and teachers thought that the students were not mature enough to understand the real meaning of identity.Most participants thought that no direct relationship was between language use and identity formation because people can use a second language to reflect or form their cultural identity.However, from a broad perspective, a close relationship does exist because people can use any language to reflect their cultural identity.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".