Children’s language exposure and parental language attitudes in Russian-as-a-heritage-language acquisition by bilingual and multilingual children in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions: The research study presented in this paper aims to describe some aspects of the maintenance of Russian as a heritage language among bilingual/multilingual children in Saskatchewan, Canada. The study focuses on the relationship between parents’ language attitudes and children’s language exposure on the one hand and child language proficiency on the other hand. The research questions are as follows. What are the language attitudes of Russian-speaking parents in minority settings? Is there a connection between parents’ language attitudes and children’s language proficiency? What is the scope of Russian language exposure of bilingual/multilingual children within and outside of the family? Is there a connection between this exposure and children’s language proficiency? Design/Methodology/Approach: The study was conducted within a Variationist Sociolinguistics framework. The following methods were employed in the study: a questionnaire study of parents’ language attitudes and of language use within and outside the family; an assessment of children’s speech production based on narratives elicited from children with the help of pictures (language proficiency parameters). Data and Analysis: Thirty parents (aged 31–43) and children (aged 5–7) participated in the study. The questionnaire addressed to parents included 52 demographic and research questions. A statistical analysis of parents’ language attitudes and language use by parents and their children as measured against language proficiency parameters was conducted with the help of correlation analysis. Findings/Conclusions: Study results indicate that Russian-speaking parents in Saskatchewan are interested in passing Russian to their children. The study also suggests that language exposure parameters, as well as language attitudes held by parents, correlate with children’s heritage language fluency. Originality: The study indicates that even in environments unfavorable for heritage language maintenance, a child can still successfully acquire Russian as a heritage language. Significance/Implications: The study clarifies the set of parameters relevant for heritage language maintenance among bilingual/multilingual children. It also suggests the importance of bilingualism/multilingualism for some groups of the immigrant population in Canada.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".