Code-switching and the Construction of Identity in Where Are We Going, Dad? Season V from the Socio-psycholinguistic Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the code-switching in people’s daily interaction in the outdoor parent-child reality TV show Where Are We Going, Dad? Season V from the socio-psycholinguistic perspective. The main purpose is to reveal how the social meanings of dialogues and identity construction enact in parents’ and their children’s daily interactions. Based on both quantitative and qualitative methods, this study analyzes daily conversations in different situations from three aspects, including speech accommodation, language attitude, and psychological motivation. The findings indicate that code-switching from Mandarin to English plays a more central role in the show. Moreover, code-switching used in the show is regarded as a language choice as well as a way to signify the speaker’s conscious shift of self-identity in a different situation. Language convergence denotes parents’ and their children’s adaptation to local environments and respect for local culture, meaning that speakers try to establish a common identity with the local people. Chinese and English code-switching has been associated with a shift between a soft one in Chinese and a forceful one in English, implying that there is a submissive self in Chinese and an authoritative self in English. The psychological motivation reveals the sense of belonging to the mother tongue and national identity of language users. Therefore, code-switching reveals complex ethnic identities, including the self as a show performer, cultural lover, father, or mother, which are consciously or unconsciously influenced by the speakers’ language repertoire, social background knowledge, and their intention of building ethnic 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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it