Effects of Babel in the Church: A Study of Language Planning, Policy and Practice in Japanese Ethnic Churches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the globalizing world, it is difficult to understand the cultural, linguistic, religious and policy landscape of Japanese ethnic church communities. Japanese ethnic church communities in Western Canada consist of, and are impacted by, levels of language planning, policy, and practice as they are communities that operate within and without macro-levels of language policies (i.e., Official Language Act and the Canadian Multicultural Act), meso-levels of church policies (e.g., church websites and Facebook pages), and micro-levels that are often determined by perspectives of church members who are typically Japanese people from Japan. Japanese ethnic churches are also spaces that function to legitimize the language and cultural practices of Japanese people who come to Canada for various purposes and periods of time. Since little research has been done to understand the language and cultural practices of Japanese ethnic churches in Western Canada, it is important to ask the following question: What is a Japanese ethnic church community in terms of language and cultural practices? To answer this question, I use language planning and policy (Johnson, 2009) as a theoretical framework and conduct a multi-site case study (Thomas, 2011) that consists of data collected through interviews and observational experiences which are analyzed using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Fairclough, 2003; Gumperz, 1982; Onodera, 2004) to understand relationships of power and intertextuality in discourses and in social practices relevant to Japanese ethnic church communities in Western Canada. The analysis reveals that while Japanese ethnic churches are spaces of legitimization that are fueled by strong beliefs about one nation, one culture, and one language ideologies, and subsequently aimed at, and dependent upon facilitating the perceived Japanese language and cultural preferences/needs of first generation Japanese people who come to Canada as adults, church members also perceive themselves as becoming “mixed” to varying degrees as they are impacted by the dominant English language policies, practices, and culture in Western Canada. As a result, legitimization is often context dependent and experienced differently by church members within and without Japanese ethnic churches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".