Heritage language learning and identity construction of 1.5 and second generation Korean Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigrants’ extensive contributions to Canada include cultural and linguistic diversity, underscoring the need to understand the complexities and identity construction of linguistic minorities. Drawing on sociocultural and poststructural perspectives on language, identity, and power (Duff, 2007, 2019; Foucault, 1978; Norton, 2013), this multiple case study of six university-aged 1.5 and second generation Korean Canadians explores the dynamic interplay of heritage language learning experiences, situated contexts, and identity construction. Drawing on participants’ lived experiences and perspectives, the data include in-depth interviews with the primary participants, a focus group with community leaders, and the researcher’s reflection journals. Offering insight into the participants’ first institutional heritage language learning experiences at a university, the findings reveal how deeply these linguistic minorities’ heritage language learning trajectories and identity construction were situated within complex webs of familial, sociocultural, political and transnational factors, and individuals’ different ways of reacting to the social forces. Endeavors to immerse themselves into a range of linguistic and cultural contexts gave these young adults valuable life lessons and unique identities as Korean Canadians, within which they shifted their bilingual/cultural identities. Their heritage language played a critical role in the participants’ multiple identities, broadening their social spaces. University-aged Korean Canadians’ experiences underscore the importance of sociocultural contexts of linguistic minorities’ identity and heritage language learning, the close relationship between language and identity, and the critical role of institutional inclusion of heritage languages, alongside the role of the home, educational institutions, communities, and society.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".