The Discourses of Heritage Language Development: Engaging Ideologies in Canadian Hispanic Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this article is to investigate the discourses surrounding the development and maintenance of Spanish in Canadian Hispanic families and community groups. Although the research literature already contains abundant insights into a variety of issues and factors, such as the individual, familial and societal benefits of heritage language maintenance, its conceptualization from a theoretical perspective of discourses and ideologies in families is less frequently discussed explicitly. Therefore, via analyses of interviews and daily interactions drawn from a 1.5-year ethnography conducted in Western Canada, the article draws attention to the diversity of meanings present in the families’ discursive constructions of heritage language development and maintenance. The interviews with parents were found to contain discourses that embodied implicit and explicit ideologies about language. Some of the metalinguistic constructions of language maintenance discussed in the article include discourses that can be categorized as utilitarian, affective, aesthetic, cosmopolitan and oppositional. The article concludes with implications for theory, research and families.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".