MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910516087 · doi:10.1515/ijsl-2018-2002

Changing orientations to heritage language: The practice-based ideology of Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora families

2019· article· en· W2910516087 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Suresh Canagarajah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of the Sociology of Language · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTamilSociologyDiasporaHeritage languageIdeologyIndexicalityLanguage ideologySocial practiceLinguisticsLocal languageGender studiesPedagogyPolitical scienceComputer scienceHistoryPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The notion of heritage language (HL) has recently been challenged by emerging orientations to language. That languages are always in contact, they are constructed by ideologies, and they don’t have an ontological status challenge traditional notions of HL as primordial, pure, and territorialized. In this article, I draw from data from a qualitative inquiry adopting observations, surveys, and interviews on how families of the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora community in UK, USA, and Canada define heritage language and competence. I focus specifically on interview data to unveil the language ideologies of community members relating to heritage language and identity. For them, competence means having the ability to align Tamil verbal resources strategically with multimodal semiotic resources and spatial repertoires to accomplish social and cultural communicative activities. For this objective, being proficient in fragmentary verbal resources, receptive and/or conversational skills, low diglossic Tamil, and informal register are deemed satisfactory. Therefore the corpus that is considered as HL is also changing in diaspora contexts to accommodate appropriations from other languages, and metonymic uses, which develop shared indexicality for the community. I label these assumptions as constituting a practice-based ideology of HL. Such an orientation will help us understand HL as a socially constructed and changing construct, while affirming its importance for migrant communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.419 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of the Sociology of LanguageSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207