The perceived value of bilingualism among U.S. parents: The role of language experience and local multilingualism.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical models have posited that social contexts influence parental attitudes, which in turn modulate parental behaviors.The current study asks whether parental attitudes on bilingualism differ by local language context and whether parents who perceive bilingualism as more valuable are more likely to engage in activities with their child in their home language.We synthesize theoretical models with insights from Family Language Policy in an ecological framework of bilingual development and test these relations in a U.S. sample of parents in 42 states.By capturing parents' perceived value of bilingualism with an online survey (n = 319) and linking responses to U.S. census data, we explored relations among local multilingualism, perceptions of the value of bilingualism, and parents' language practices.We found that parents who lived in more multilingual areas held more positive attitudes toward bilingualism, but the contribution of local multilingualism varied by language background.Local multilingualism mattered most for English-speaking parents who had never tried to learn another language, with those who lived in more multilingual areas reporting more positive perceptions of bilingualism.We also found that for parents of young children exposed to a non-English language (n = 136), those who valued bilingualism for their child were also more likely to participate in activities using their home language.These findings show how distal societal factors, such as local multilingualism, can have a cascading association with parents' perceived value of bilingualism and parents' language practices with their young children in the United States.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".