Family language policy in tension: Conflicting language ideologies and translanguaging practices in multilingual families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims and objectives: This paper highlights the conflicting language ideologies and translanguaging practices of a transcultural (Korean/Canadian) Korean/English-speaking family residing in South Korea through the lens of family language policy. Methodology: This paper draws on qualitative case study methods. Data collected consisted of interview data, language portraits, audio and video recorded family discussion of the language portraits, familial meals, and board/card game playing, as well as participant journal entries. The data from this paper comes from a larger project. Data and analysis: Data were gathered from four members of a multilingual family residing in South Korea. Data were coded and analyzed iteratively using thematic analysis. Findings: Findings from this paper suggest that language ideologies among multilingual family members vary due to the influence of local language ideologies and individual language experiences; this can lead to a disconnect between language practices and language ideologies and a multilingual identity in children. Originality: To my knowledge, this paper is the first study to use a family language policy lens in a transcultural multilingual family in South Korea. In addition, the study utilized unique data collection activities such as the video-recorded discussion of family member language portraits. Significance: This paper argues for parents in multilingual families to take a translanguaging stance when considering their language policies in the home to support their children’s multilingual identities. This is the first paper to take this stance by involving all family members, and by using multiple sources of data, including language practices. Furthermore, this paper takes a critical approach to the lens of family language policy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".