谁是双语者?浮现师范生的双语观念

IF 0.9 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Languages Pub Date : 2024-06-06 DOI:10.3390/languages9060208
Minhye Son, Elisabeth H. Kim
{"title":"谁是双语者?浮现师范生的双语观念","authors":"Minhye Son, Elisabeth H. Kim","doi":"10.3390/languages9060208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This qualitative study delved into the perceptions of “bilingualism” among 60 students in a teacher education program, drawing on survey responses at the outset of their training. Informed by the translanguaging framework, we analyzed teacher candidates’ responses to identify a range of views spanning from minimalist to maximalist and from monoglossic to heteroglossic perspectives of bilingualism. Our analysis revealed many teacher candidates had a strict and narrow definition of bilingualism based on minimalist and monoglossic standards, especially when considering their own bilingual identities, legitimizing only speakers with native-like proficiency in all language domains in two languages as true bilinguals. Interestingly, their conceptions of bilingualism, as future educators, tended to be more maximalist and heteroglossic when they considered the bilingual potential of their future students. These findings will contribute and challenge the discourses that favor and idealize perfect balanced bilingualism. Implications for research and practice for teachers and teacher educators in bilingual settings are discussed.","PeriodicalId":52329,"journal":{"name":"Languages","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who Are Bilinguals? Surfacing Teacher Candidates’ Conceptions of Bilingualism\",\"authors\":\"Minhye Son, Elisabeth H. Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/languages9060208\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This qualitative study delved into the perceptions of “bilingualism” among 60 students in a teacher education program, drawing on survey responses at the outset of their training. Informed by the translanguaging framework, we analyzed teacher candidates’ responses to identify a range of views spanning from minimalist to maximalist and from monoglossic to heteroglossic perspectives of bilingualism. Our analysis revealed many teacher candidates had a strict and narrow definition of bilingualism based on minimalist and monoglossic standards, especially when considering their own bilingual identities, legitimizing only speakers with native-like proficiency in all language domains in two languages as true bilinguals. Interestingly, their conceptions of bilingualism, as future educators, tended to be more maximalist and heteroglossic when they considered the bilingual potential of their future students. These findings will contribute and challenge the discourses that favor and idealize perfect balanced bilingualism. Implications for research and practice for teachers and teacher educators in bilingual settings are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Languages\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Languages\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9060208\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Languages","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9060208","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项定性研究利用教师培训初期的调查问卷,深入研究了 60 名师范专业学生对 "双语 "的看法。在翻译语言框架的指导下,我们对师范生的回答进行了分析,以确定从最低限度到最高限度、从单语种到异语种的双语观点。我们的分析表明,许多应聘教师对双语的定义是严格而狭隘的,是基于极简主义和单语主义的标准,尤其是在考虑到他们自己的双语身份时,他们认为只有在所有语言领域都能用两种语言达到母语水平的人才是真正的双语者。有趣的是,作为未来的教育者,当他们考虑到未来学生的双语潜力时,他们对双语的概念倾向于最大化和异语言化。这些研究结果将对赞成和理想化完美平衡双语的论述提出质疑。此外,还讨论了双语环境中教师和教师教育者的研究和实践意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Who Are Bilinguals? Surfacing Teacher Candidates’ Conceptions of Bilingualism
This qualitative study delved into the perceptions of “bilingualism” among 60 students in a teacher education program, drawing on survey responses at the outset of their training. Informed by the translanguaging framework, we analyzed teacher candidates’ responses to identify a range of views spanning from minimalist to maximalist and from monoglossic to heteroglossic perspectives of bilingualism. Our analysis revealed many teacher candidates had a strict and narrow definition of bilingualism based on minimalist and monoglossic standards, especially when considering their own bilingual identities, legitimizing only speakers with native-like proficiency in all language domains in two languages as true bilinguals. Interestingly, their conceptions of bilingualism, as future educators, tended to be more maximalist and heteroglossic when they considered the bilingual potential of their future students. These findings will contribute and challenge the discourses that favor and idealize perfect balanced bilingualism. Implications for research and practice for teachers and teacher educators in bilingual settings are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Languages
Languages Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
22.20%
发文量
282
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信