Language ideologies of three intercultural and interlingual parent couples in Canada: an examination of intervening factors that prevent active multilingualism for their children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the family language policies of three intercultural parent couples in Canada. Drawing upon a larger study of their perceptions of childhood and childrearing, and recognising the families as microcosms reflecting larger wholes, this paper revisits the narrative case studies composed in the original research to examine each couple’s language ideologies. In this study, the developmental niche framework was employed in analysis of the parents’ experiences and perspectives as they pursued, considered, or rejected multilingualism for their children. The parent couples included (1) one French Canadian spouse born and raised in Canada and one in Uganda; (2) one Scottish/English spouse born and raised in Canada and one in The Netherlands; and (3) a Plains Cree spouse born and raised in Canada and one in Romania. Findings were that not all participants desired to impart a heritage language to their children due to social, cultural, political, and economic realities and histories. Participants who did desire multilingualism for their children reported being unsuccessful due to various intervening factors: the affective dimension, differing parental language ideologies and impact beliefs, parental cognitions of language use, child agency, a lack of language community, and an autochthonous minority language. Further interpretive studies are recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".