LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES AND PRACTICES, TRANSNATIONALISM, AND IDENTITY IN MULTILINGUAL FAMILIES By Heather Lyn Reichmuth A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education – Doctor of Philosophy 2022 ABSTRACT LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES AND PRACTICES, TRANSNATIONALISM, AND IDENTITY IN MULTILINGUAL FAMILIES By Heather Lyn Reichmuth This three-paper formatted dissertation is a qualitative case study of one intermarried Korean- English speaking family residing in South Korea. Data was drawn from in-depth, semi-structured interviews, participant journals, and video documentation of familial interactions, including discussions of family member’s language portraits, family mealtimes, and familial time spent playing board and card games. The first of the three articles examines the language ideologies and practices of the intermarried family and argues that a translanguaging stance needs to be taken up by caregivers in a bilingual home to support bilingual children and push back on monolingual ideologies placed on bilingual children. The second article looks at the influence of transnational knowledge that the parent members of the family possessed and how this knowledge alongside their ethnotheories of childrearing influenced their bonding and language practices in the home. The third paper examines the practiced and positioned identities of the four family members in Korea. The findings of this dissertation suggest that: 1) multiple and conflicting language ideologies and practices can exist in multilingual homes, 2) a translanguaging stance among caregivers of bilingual children is important to support their evolving bilingual identities, 3) transnational knowledge and ethnotheories are present in the decision making of family language policies and practices in intermarried families, and 4) practiced identities may conflict with positioned identities, especially those of multilingual and multiracial children in the Korean context. Copyright by HEATHER LYN REICHMUTH 2022 In loving memory of Bruce Jeffrey Reichmuth, the man who made me see the world in new and exciting ways. 1948-2016 To Taehyoung and Jia Kim, for always being there to laugh, cry, and celebrate. I could not have done this without your love and support. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My journey through the dissertation process and my doctoral studies was supported by so many wonderful people. First and foremost are Taehyoung and Jia Kim. Taehyoung, your unrelenting support and love helped me persevere through the hardest days and gave me strength to keep going. Jia, because of you I found joy in playing, being silly, and non-academic; Needed breaks from demanding hours of study. Thank you for keeping me sane. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee members- Drs. Patricia Edwards, Peter De Costa, Lucia Cardenas Curiel, Jungmin Kwon, and Jennifer VanDerHeide- for all the ways you guided me throughout this journey. Pat, thank you for serving as my mentor and advisor. Your experience and wisdom have helped me to navigate academia and to see my potential. Peter, your guidance and the opportunities you gave me helped me to begin a scholarly agenda. Thank you for your support and guidance the past five years. Lucia, thank you for always pushing me to think deeper and be a better scholar/writer. Jungmin, thank you for your quick responses, critical feedback, and positive support of all my work. Jen, thank you for your help with data analysis and always being there to listen to what I was working through. Two individuals I would like to thank for their unwavering support throughout my time at MSU are Laura Kennedy and Taeyeon Kim. Laura, thank you for recommending the MSU CITE program to me. I would not be writing this acknowledgment today if it weren’t for you. Also, thank you for always being there to listen, answer my questions, and provide helpful suggestions and feedback on writing and anything related to CITE. Thank you for also being a great friend. Taeyeon, our collaboration and friendship have meant so much to me. You have v always been there for me when I have needed guidance and support. I have learned so much from you. Over the past five years I have met engaging, brilliant, budding scholars who have supported me in multiple and various ways- Rebekah Gordon, Lee Her, Kaitlin Glause, and Yujin Oh. Thank you all for your guidance, feedback, support, and friendship. Not only have I had the support of so many academics at MSU, but without the early support of my parents, Bruce and Christine Reichmuth, I never would have made it this far in my academic career. Mom, thank you for instilling in me a love of literature and writing. Dad, thank you for sparking my curiosity of the world and making me question the world around me. Thank you both for your love and support. A big thank you goes out to the focal family in this study- Anne, Jaewon, Rose, and Jack. Thank you for giving me your time and sharing with me your experiences living and growing up in Korea. I learned so much from you about language learning in the home and how to support multilingual children and families. Anne and Jaewon, you are both fascinating individuals and have raised two beautiful, smart children; How lucky they are to have you as parents. Rose and Jack, I look forward to hearing about all the adventures you have in life. Finally, thank you to the Michigan State University College of Education for funding this dissertation through multiple fellowships: Summer Renewable Research Fellowship, Dissertation Hard Cost Funding Grant, and the Dissertation Completion Fellowship. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES x INTRODUCTION 1 English Language Teaching 2 Korean Language Learner 2 Family Language Planning 3 Parent-Child Bonding 3 Shifts in Family Language Policies and Practices 4 Conclusion 5 Synopsis of the Three Dissertation Articles 6 REFERENCES 8 ARTICLE 1 11 “To Err is Human”: Translanguaging in Multilingual Families 11 Introduction 11 Review of the Literature 11 Translanguaging 14 Researcher positionality 17 Participants 17 Methodology 19 Data Collection 19 Data Analysis 21 Findings 22 Unique language Ideologies 23 Jaewon 23 Anne 26 Rose 27 Jack 28 Translanguaging Practices 30 Discussion 34 Implications 37 REFERENCES 39 ARTICLE 2 45 Transnational Knowledge and Bonding in Multilingual Families Introduction 45 Korean Cultural Beliefs and Language Learning 45 Theoretical Framework 48 Culture and Childrearing in Intermarried Multilingual Families 48 Transnationalism 49 vii Methodology 51 Positionality Statement 52 Participants 53 Data Collection 54 Data Analysis 55 Findings 57 Transnational Knowledge and Ethnotheories 57 Jaewon 57 Anne 60 Language Learning and Bonding 62 Studying English in the Home 62 Discussion 67 Implications 69 REFERENCES 71 ARTICLE 3 77 Language and Cultural Identities in Multilingual Families 77 Introduction 77 Figured Worlds 80 Identity and Agency 81 Methodology 82 Researcher Positionality 82 Participants 83 Data Collection 84 Data Analysis 87 Results 87 Diverse Practiced Identities 88 Jaewon 88 Rose 92 Jack 94 Anne 97 Resisting Positioned Identities 100 Discussion 104 Implications 108 REFERENCES 111 CONCLUSION Implications 116 Families 117 Teachers 118 Field of Education 119 Limitations 119 REFERENCES 121 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Family Members’ Background Information 18 Table 2 Data Collected for Each Participant 20 Table 3 Codes and Definitions 22 Table 4 Participant Information 54 Table 5 Data Collected from Participants 55 Table 6 Codes and Definitions 56 Table 7 Participant’s Basic Background Information 84 Table 8 Codes and Definitions used for Data Analysis 87 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Spectrum of Family Member’s Language Ideologies 23 Figure 2 Family Member’s Stated and Enacted Language Practices 31 Figure 3 Parental Ethnotheories and Transnational Knowledge 51 Figure 4 Jaewon’s Language Portrait 88 Figure 5 Rose’s Language Portrait 92 Figure 6 Jack’s Language Portrait 95 Figure 7 Anne’s Language Portrait 97 x INTRODUCTION With her younger brother and hope chest by her side, Christina Porto boarded the Giuseppe Verdi docked in Naples, Italy and arrived at Ellis Island on December 17, 1920. She then traveled to Connecticut to meet her betrothed, Andrew DiLeone, for the first time. They would go on to have five surviving children, the youngest of whom would be my mother. Growing up I heard Italian from multiple sources, from my grandmother, her friends, and relatives who were visiting from ‘the old country’. (My grandfather passed away before I was born). My mother was able to understand Italian, but she was never expected to speak it; so, with her own children, she had no other language but English to pass on. When my grandmother was alive, I would ask her about life growing up in Italy and to teach me Italian words and songs. I became quite aware from a young age that if I did not ask, my grandmother never thought to communicate with me in Italian. I imagine to her, Italian was not something that I needed to know and was a remanent of our family’s past, not our future. After my grandmother passed away, the visits from Italian relatives ceased, but my curiosity about the world outside of my small working-class suburban town outside Buffalo, New York did not waiver. My grandmother was not the only family member who sparked my curiosity of life outside my hometown. Growing up, my family attended Catholic religious services weekly, but my father engaged me in conversations about Eastern religions and diverse ways of looking at life. These long discussions challenged my views of life and led me to want to know more about the world. During my last year of my undergraduate studies, I did not know what I wanted to do with my life. The only thing I really knew was that I wanted to see the world. During that time, I learned about overseas teaching opportunities abroad. Little did I know that my move in 1 2002 to South Korea (hereafter Korea) was the beginning of a 15-year sojourn where I would not only learn to be a teacher, become passionate about teaching, but also meet the love of my life. English Language Teaching Being an English as a foreign language teacher, language learning was always at the forefront of my mind. How could I create an environment where students would feel comfortable and motivated to learn and speak in English? What role did I need to take? I read literature and watched documentaries in Korea about learning English; and the many ways that Korean schools and parents were teaching their kids outside of an English environment. While I was in Korea, the government created designated English only villages that were meant to replicate an English- speaking environment that included restaurants and other forms of entertainment all in English. Foreign English speakers were hired to work in these villages. It was clear that environment was important to learning a language. If there is no need to speak a language, then individuals tend to be unmotivated to engage in a non-local language. Korean Language Learner Also during my time in Korea, I wanted to become proficient at speaking Korean. As the literature has found, there are many challenges for adults to learn a new language even in an immersion situation (Norton, 2013). From my first days in Korea, I purchased books on the Korean language, enrolled in Korean language classes, and began to use Korean while shopping, in restaurants, etc. A few barriers I noticed right away to my language acquisition were that the Korean books and classes focused on teaching the most formal register of the language which was not used on a young woman in her 20s, so when I would try and understand my interlocutors, I was lost. After I left the suburbs my first year, I moved to Seoul. In the city, I found even less opportunities to learn Korean. When I would go to a restaurant and order 2 something in Korean, I would often get responses in English. This made it more of a challenge to improve my Korean, though I did, it took a lot of time. Family Language Planning With my own experience of being the granddaughter of Italian immigrants and feeling that a familial language was lost, the struggles of acquiring Korean, and seeing the challenges that others were going through to learn English, including my husband who was Korean, I knew that I wanted to give my future children the gift of language. Therefore, when we were expecting our first child, it was clear what my husband and I wanted to do: We wanted our child to speak both of our languages. At the time, we were still living in Korea and had no plan of leaving. Based on what we had read from parenting books, following the One Parent One Language (OPOL) policy (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004; Leopold, 1939; Romaine, 1995; Ronjat, 1913) seemed to be best since we were both first language (L1) speakers of our respective languages, we thought we could provide our child with the best we could from our languages. This OPOL policy became our family language policy (FLP), or the rules for language practices we would follow in our home (King, et al., 2008), when our daughter was first born. We had a lot of support from family and friends in Korea that thought an OPOL policy would allow our child to be free from the pain of learning a second language from schools and save us money as we wouldn’t have to hire her English tutors or send her to English hagwons (academies). Yet at the same time, I heard anecdotally from many work colleagues who were mainly western L1 English speaking men married to Korean women, that some of their children hated English, refused to use English, or did not speak much English, which raised concerns for me. 3 Parent-Child Bonding As a new mother, one of the main things I read about in parenting books was the importance of bonding with my new child. From laying my newborn on my chest after birth to wearing her in a carrier. In the books, it was always emphasized that mother-child and father- child attachment and bonding was essential. During my daughter’s delivery, there were complications, so the doctor put her on antibiotics and kept her monitored in the nursery for her first week of life. During that time, I worried that the chains that should bind us were lost forever. Yet over time, I came to realize that bonding is relationship building, and that one week of her life was just a small fraction of our time together. Shifts in Family Language Policies and Practices Relationships between parents and children evolve over time and change because of a child’s age and their environment. An additional aspect of the parent-child relationship in bi/multilingual families also involves language usage. Although while living in Korea we followed an OPOL language policy this plan was not sustainable when we moved to the U.S. Over time we found that our daughter was more influenced by my language usage (English) than her father’s (Korean), even before starting pre-school. My husband also became cognizant of our daughter’s reactions to his Korean in the U.S. As an example, she would close the door on him or walk away from him when he spoke Korean. He worried his relationship with her would dwindle if he continued to be the sole Korean speaker in the house. Therefore, we decided that I would also start using Korean at home as well. I read her books in Korean, spoke to her in Korean, and we would have conversations about language to make her more aware of the languages in the world around us. During this time though, my own insecurities about my Korean proficiency and accent were a personal concern. Can I really support her if I am not a 4 native-like Korean speaker? Should I just put all the Korean language burden on my husband? Was that fair? What could I do for my daughter’s evolving identity and language development as her mother? Despite my own concerns, I found having a positive attitude about Korean language and culture around her had a fruitful impact on her usage and attitude towards Korean. Having lived in Korea for 15 years, I had knowledge of Korean culture which allowed me, alongside my husband, to be an avenue of Korean language and culture for her. Although attitudes about Korean language and culture have become positive for our daughter, our FLP and language and literacy practices are always in flux since she is changing (growing), our lives are changing (i.e., COVID-19), our relationships are changing, and the time, energy, and effort needed to maintain a minoritized language in the home are constantly being negotiated by all members. Conclusion I came to this study with these life experiences of trying to raise a simultaneous Korean- English bilingual child in both Korea and the U.S. Being a member of an intermarried 1 transnational family, we never know if or when we will be living in our spouse’s country. Having started our family’s journey in Korea, I was intrigued to know more about the experiences of Korean-English intermarried families residing in Korea considering the Korean pure blood ideologies (Lee, 2008; Lim, 2010)––the idea that Koreans are a unique ethnic group having one blood line that is not “mixed” with another ethnic group or race; as well as Korean language ideologies that link the Korean language and people together (Simpson, 2007). With 1 In this dissertation, an intermarried family refers to families that have parent members who come from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. 5 this in mind, I was curious how intermarried families negotiated these ideologies and sustained healthy family relationships through language policies and practices in this context. Synopsis of the Dissertation Articles This dissertation is presented in a three-paper format, meaning each paper is structured for an intended audience, with a unique theoretical framework, and chosen data used for analysis. All four participants are present in all three papers, but the extent that their stories are told differs depending on the framework and questions asked. The first paper presented is, “To Err is Human”: Conflicting Ideologies and Translanguaging Practices in Multilingual Families. This article drew on family language policy (King, et al., 2008) and translanguaging (García & Li Wei, 2013) to demonstrate the unique language ideologies that can be present among family members in a bilingual family and how these ideologies can conflict with their language practices in the home. This article advocates for the use of García et al.’s (2017) translanguaging stance to be taken up by parents or caregivers to support their bilingual children’s emotional well-being. Purposefully taking this stance would reduce harmful monolingual ideologies that define bilinguals through a monolingual lens or viewing bilinguals as two monolinguals in one (Grosjean, 1982). Such ideologies can have negative ramifications on bilingual children’s identity and emerging language growth (García & Li Wei, 2013). The second article, Transnational Knowledge and Bonding in Multilingual families, pushes the field of FLP further by arguing that ethnotheories (Harkness and Super, 2006) alongside transnational knowledge, influence parents’ childrearing and language practices in bi/multilingual homes. Drawing on theories of transnationalism (Levitt, 2001), this paper illuminates how both parents’ knowledge gained living in and outside of Korea provided them a toolbox of childrearing practices that supported familial bonding and language transmission. It 6 also allowed the parents to resist the Korean competitive educational environment for their children’s emotional well-being. The third article, Practiced and Positioned Identities in Multiracial Families draws on Holland et al.’s (1998) Figured Worlds to examine the practiced and positioned identities of the four family members. The results from the participants language portraits, journal entries, and interviews, showed that family members practiced identities and positionalities varied depending on their phenotype. The White Canadian mother practiced and was positioned as a foreigner in the Korean context while the father practiced a transnational identity but was positioned as Korean. Their biracial children practiced Korean identities but were positioned as ‘foreign.’ This study suggests that racial positionality of family members can conflict with their practiced identities, and that members of a multiracial family experience societal positioning in various and unequal ways. 7 REFERENCES 8 REFERENCES Barron-Hauwaert, S. (2004). Language strategies for bilingual families: The one-parent-one- language approach. Multilingual Matters. García, O., & Li Wei (2013). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan. Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Harvard University Press. Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (2006). Themes and variations: Parental ethnotheories in western cultures. In K.H. Rubin & O.B. Chung (Eds.), Parenting beliefs, behaviors, and parent- child relations: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 61-79). Psychology Press. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard University Press. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (2003). Language and language-in-education planning in the Pacific Basin. Springer. King, K. A., Fogle, L., & Logan‐Terry, A. (2008). Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 907-922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00076.x Lee, M. (2008). Mixed race peoples in the Korean national imaginary and family. Korean Studies, 32, 56–85. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23718931 Leopold, W. (1939). Speech Development of a Bilingual Child: A Linguist’s Record. Northwestern University. Lim, T. (2010). Rethinking belongingness in Korea: Transnational migration, “migrant marriages” and the politics of multiculturalism. Pacific Affairs, 83(1), 51- 71. https://doi.org/10.5509/201083151 Levitt, P. (2001). The transnational villagers. University of California Press. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning. Multilingual matters. Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism. 2nd ed. Basil Blackwell Ronjat, J. 1913. Le De´veloppement du Langage Observe´ chez un Enfant Bilingue [The Observed Development of Language in a Bilingual Child]. H. Champion. 9 Simpson, A. (2007). Language and national identity in Asia: Thematic Introduction. In A. Simpson (Ed.), Language and national identity in Asia (pp. 1-30). Oxford University Press. 10 ARTICLE 1 “To Err is Human”: Conflicting Ideologies and Translanguaging Practices in Multilingual Families Introduction Family language policy (FLP) is a field of study that examines how families make decisions, whether explicit or implicit, about what languages are used in the home and how those languages are negotiated and sustained over time (King et al., 2008). Studies on FLP encompass a wide spectrum of cases such as intergenerational heritage language maintenance, additive bilingualism, and language revitalization efforts. Research on FLP highlights parental language beliefs (e.g., De Houwer, 1999), the influence of local language ideologies (e.g., Smith- Christmas 2019) and language practices (e.g., Spolsky, 2012) on children’s language outcomes. In intermarried families where parents speak different first languages (L1), the decision to take an OPOL approach to pass on minoritized family languages intergenerationally is common. Recent studies suggest that strict OPOL rules can cause emotional distress in multilingual children depending on their personality (Wilson, 2020). Therefore, in this study examining one Korean/English speaking intermarried family residing in South Korea (hereafter Korea) I move forward García et al.’s (2017) definition of a translanguaging stance which emphasizes teachers, to include parents in bilingual families as seeing their children’s languages as working together, utilizing their languages for their child’s bilingual growth, and an attitude that helps orient their children toward a bilingual identity. Review of the Literature A popular language ideology taken up by intermarried families is the belief that children will naturally learn both parent’s languages if each parent speaks their L1 to their children 11 (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004; Leopold, 1939; Romaine,1995; Ronjat, 1913). This is known as the One Parent One Language (OPOL) approach. This approach is founded on the principle that bilingualism is a type of ‘double monolingualism’ (Heller, 2007) which is aimed at strictly compartmentalizing both parents’ languages. This means that even in families that desire that their children are bilingual, parents may still have monolingual language ideologies about how these languages should be learned, managed, and practiced. Monolingual ideologies refer to the idea that communication happens through one language at a time and that languages are separate. However, this negates the dynamic reality of bilinguals’ languages and repertoires which are constantly being drawn upon during communicative events (García & Li Wei, 2013). Thus, bilinguals do not turn off one language while another language is being used, but rather both languages are active during communication. Two studies that surveyed parents’ language practices in bilingual families revealed that strict OPOL policies were rare among bilingual families in Flanders (De Houwer, 2007) and Japan (Yamamoto, 2001), respectively. Most parents reported using either the same two languages with their children or one parent used only one language while the other parent used both family languages. The third most common practice was an OPOL approach, but even in these cases parents reported often being flexible in their language use. Therefore, it is unlikely that most parents take on strict OPOL policies (Palviainen & Boyd, 2013). Yet parents often believe that this approach is the method to follow to raise balanced bilinguals (Palviainen & Boyd, 2013). Balanced bilinguals have been defined as individuals with the ability to speak two languages at equal proficiency to someone the same age in each language (American Psychological Association, 2022). The problem with this approach to bilingualism is that it is only concerned with language outcomes but not with the socio-emotional wellbeing of the 12 children in the family, whereas language flexibility seems to emerge from parent’s emotional response to their children’s needs (e.g., De Houwer, 2007; Tannenbaum, 2012). Recent research suggests that there may be negative effects, such as emotional anxiety in children depending on how OPOL policies are managed by parents and the personality of the individual child (Wilson, 2020).Yet in families that do not have stringent language policies, there is often a language shift to the local dominant language, meaning the home language becomes the language found in the local context (Altman et al., 2014) and the minoritized language is not passed on intergenerationally. Admittedly, the OPOL approach can have negative outcomes, but not having a language policy can result in the loss of a family language. Parents and educators interested in maintaining familial language intergenerationally, in particular, may wonder what parental language beliefs and practices best support language maintenance. Past parental language learning experiences which influence these beliefs, have been found to play a key role in shaping FLPs and practices (Purkarthofer & Steien, 2019; King & Fogle, 2006). Some adult members in intermarried families, were raised in bi/multilingual homes while others learned their spouse’s language early or later in life in their home country or abroad. On the other hand, some adult members in bilingual families have very little experience outside of mandatory school language learning and may not speak their spouse’s L1. This means that the parents in intermarried families come to childrearing language practices having different language experiences which can influence their language ideologies and practices in the home (Spolsky, 2004). Although language experiences influence parent’s language beliefs and practices, local language ideologies affect them as well. Korea is a unique context to examine language ideologies in an intermarried family as Koreans hold strong language and cultural ideologies which insist on a mono-race, monoculture, 13 and mono-language shared by all Koreans (Lee, 2008; Lim, 2010; Simpson, 2007). Korea is also a distinct context to examine family member language ideologies as unlike other studies that have found minoritized family languages are trivialized in English dominant societies (Piller & Gerber, 2021), in Korea, English is associated with cultural and linguistic capital (Yoo, 2005) which is more likely to influence intermarried Korean/English speaking parents to enforce OPOL policies. Park (2009) outlines three ideologies in Korean public discourse surrounding English– necessitation, self-deprecation, and externalization. Necessitation refers to the belief that Koreans need to learn English despite the perception that Korea is a monolingual country. Within this ideology, English is treated as a result of globalization and a means for Koreans to be actors on the global economic stage. Self-deprecation refers to Koreans as inadequate speakers of English despite making vast efforts to learn English. Externalization positions English in contrast with Koreaness, meaning that English is seen as outside of a Korean identity and in stark contrast to it. Because of the self-deprecation ideology, Koreans who speak English well or perform well on high stakes exams are seen to have cultural and linguistic capital (Yoo, 2005). As both the English and Korean languages are positioned as distinct from each other within the larger society, these ideas may influence the language ideologies and practices of intermarried Korean and English-speaking parents. Therefore, it is important to consider language strategies other than OPOL to support the socio-emotional well-being of bilingual children. Translanguaging The idea that bilinguals are two monolinguals in one, which the OPOL approach inherently supports, has been refuted by many scholars (e.g., García, 2009; García & Li Wei, 2013; Grosjean, 1982). Translanguaging pushes back on this monoglossic ideology and views 14 the languages of a bilingual as dynamic; perceiving the bilingual individual’s language system as one whole system as opposed to two separate language systems (García, 2009; García, 2011). Translanguaging recognizes the fluidity of language experiences across linguistic features, symbols, and modes (Li Wei, 2018) in bilingual individuals and bilingual families. Furthermore, translanguaging acknowledges the full and complex repertoires that bilinguals draw on in various contexts and with various individuals (García & Kleifgen, 2019; García & Li Wei, 2013). Li Wei (2011) expressed how a translanguaging space allowed for creativity, combined and generated new ideas, and brought together different parts of individual’s histories and experiences. Intermarried bilingual homes are inherently spaces that produce these creative and unique spaces with the bringing together of diverse cultures and language practices. Therefore, limiting language use to one parent can hinder the creative opportunities that can arise in these homes; yet, many parents are not cognizant of the negative ramifications of upholding strict OPOL policies. García et al.’s (2017) definition of a translanguaging stance is a position taken by teachers that acknowledges the bilingual child having a holistic language repertoire to support students academically and emotionally. This stance has potential in bilingual homes to push back on monolingual ideologies present in the local context, support bilingual children’s emerging bilingualism, nurture the development of a positive bilingual identity, and reduce the stress that is created when bilinguals are defined by monolingual standards. When bilingual children are defined as two monolingual speakers in one, they are judged by a native-like control of these two languages and are expected to be equally fluent in them (Bloomfield, 1933; Peal & Lambert, 1962). If, however, their languages are seen as flexible and dynamic and their languages viewed by degrees, taking into account context and skill dimensions (Grosjean, 1994; Macnamara, 1967), then a positive bilingual identity can evolve. Therefore, a monoglossic language ideology 15 sees language as functioning independently without a context, disregarding the actual ways in which bilinguals use language; by contrast, heteroglossic language ideologies acknowledge the existence of varieties of language within and across language systems (García & Torres- Guevara, 2010). Several studies have looked at flexible language practices and translanguaging in the home context. Paulsrud & Straszer’s (2018) study, for example, focused on one bilingual child’s language agency in respecting or resisting her family’s language policies. Song (2016) underscored how Korean families residing in the U.S. used translanguaging to teach Korean while also developing their children’s English language acquisition. Kwon (2019) found that Korean parents used translanguaging to teach their Korean-American children about Korean history in a museum setting. Said and Hua (2019) found a positive view of bilingualism in an Arabic family in the U.K. led to the adherence of Arabic address markers over multiple generations. Based on these studies, there is evidence to suggest that a translanguaging stance in parent’s language beliefs and policies can result in positive intergenerational language transmission, allow for the teaching of the family’s heritage culture and history, as well as support their bilingual children’s home and local language development. In this article, I exam one Korean/English speaking family consisting of a Korean father, a White Canadian mother, and their two children. In this article, I ask the following questions: 1) What language ideologies exist among family members in an intermarried bilingual family in Korea? 2) What language practices do the family members use to communicate with each other and as a familial unit? 16 Researcher Positionality I came to this study out of my own experience of being a member of a Korean/English speaking family; I am a White American woman, and my husband is a Korean national. From 2002-2017, I lived in Korea, which is where I met my husband and where we began our family. In our daughter’s early years of life in Korea, we decided to follow the OPOL approach. We believed that since English was my dominant language and Korean was my husband’s our daughter would naturally gain the ability to speak both languages with the native-like precision that we both lacked in each other’s language. After moving to the U.S. however, we found we could no longer follow the OPOL language policy that we had once envisioned. After the role of caretaker switched from me to my husband, our daughter began resisting Korean, and my husband subsequently became worried about their relationship. As we saw our old family language policy failing, I started using more Korean and leveraging English to support her Korean acquisition. From this experience I know the challenges parents face to continue implementing strict OPOL approaches to FLP, and how context and familial member roles influence these challenges. Having started our family’s language journey in Korea, I was curious to learn how similar bilingual families in the Korean context were supporting their children’s bilingualism. Participants The focal family in this article consisted of a Korean national father (Jaewon), a White Canadian national mother (Anne), their 13-year-old daughter (Rose), and 11-year-old son (Jack). The participants’ names and pseudonyms were chosen by the participants 2. Jaewon grew up in 2 All pseudonyms were chosen by participants except for the father. He chose the name Bond however, as this study is part of a larger dissertation in which one chapter discusses familial bonding, I wanted to eliminate possible confusion for the reader. 17 Korea and lived in Germany and France over a 15-year period before returning to Korea where he met Anne. Anne traveled to Korea to teach English in 1997 where she has taught English since. After getting married in 2005, Jaewon and Anne stayed in Korea to raise their children but have always hoped to move to Canada to avoid the competitive nature of Korean schooling. They first thought they would move to Canada before Rose started elementary school; yet at the time of data collection, Rose had just started middle school and they had no definitive plans for moving to Canada. However, they now hoped to move before Rose starts high school to help her avoid the rigorous test-taking pressure that culminates during the high school years. In Table 1 below, participant names, age at the time of the study, where they were born, familial role, occupation, their time spent abroad, and their languages are listed in order of their stated proficiency. Table 1 Family Members’ Background Information Individual Age Birth Familial Work/ Time Languages Country Role Grade Abroad Jaewon 54 Korea Father Owns Lived in Korean, private Germany German, business & France French, from age English 20-35 Anne 51 Canada Mother English as Lived in English, a Foreign Korea Korean, Language from French (EFL) 1997- instructor present Rose 13 Korea Daughter 7th grade Canada, Korean, 11yearly English visits; 4-5 weeks Jack 11 Korea Son 5th grade Canada, 9 Korean, yearly English visits; 4-5 weeks 18 Methodology I adopted a case study methodology (Creswell & Poth, 2018) to record and explore the multitude of experiences of one Korean/English speaking family residing in Korea. In particular, I selected a case study approach because it allows for the researcher to gain a deep understanding of the complex experiences that humans encounter in their everyday lives (Dyson & Genishi, 2005). In this inquiry, I focused on the language ideologies and practices of four members of the aforementioned intermarried bilingual family. Data Collection Data from this case study were drawn from in-depth semi-structured interviews, participant journals, and video documentation of familial interactions, including discussions of family language portraits (Busch, 2010), family mealtimes, and familial time spent playing games. Language portraits were strategically used as a way for all family members to create and describe their multilingual experiences, and for them to learn about the experiences of their family members. Participants journaled in response to prompts to elicit their feelings, experiences, and interactions with family members, with a focus on learning about their language practices as well as to understand how they culturally and individually identify. Snowball sampling (Noy, 2008) was used to recruit participants from contacts I already knew in Korea that had one L1 English speaking parent and one L1 Korean speaking parent. Two families expressed interest in participating, but I chose the focal family because the children were older and could express their language experiences more than the child in the other family. Initial in-depth semi-structured interviews began in June 2020. Due to travel restrictions surrounding COVID-19, I was unable to visit the family in Korea; therefore, I utilized online platforms such as Seesaw, an education tool that allows participants to upload written, audio, or 19 video recordings, and a shared Google Drive folder to collect journal, video, and audio data. Parents were asked to video or audio record familial interactions, such as dinners and family activities together. The purpose of collecting this data was to understand how the family engaged in language practices together while engaging in diverse activities. All family members but Jaewon participated in two, approximately hour-long interviews, which were audio recorded and conducted via Zoom. Jaewon participated in one hour and a half long interview. Table 2 describes the types of data collected, how the data was collected, and whether or not the family member participated in the activity. Table 2 Data Collected for Each Participant Individual Interviews Journal Language Daily Board Family Responses Portrait Schedule Games Dinner Anne Two Yes, 5 Yes, Video Yes, Yes, Video Yes, interviews times, Recording/ Google Recording, Audio file, Seesaw/ Image Drive Google Google Google Google Drive Drive Drive Drive Jaewon One No Yes, Video Yes, Yes, Video Yes, interview Recording/ Google Recording, Audio file, Image Drive Google Google Google Drive Drive Drive Rose Two Yes, 4 Yes, Video Yes, Yes, Video Yes, Interviews times, Recording/ Google Recording, Audio file, Seesaw Image Drive Google Google Google Drive Drive Drive Jack Two Yes, 4 Yes, Video Yes, Yes, Video Yes, Interviews times, Recording/ Google Recording, Audio file, Seesaw Image Drive Google Google Google Drive Drive Drive 20 The interview data of this study was also collected using a translanguaging and familial approach. Recent studies have seen the benefit of using a translanguaging approach in cross- cultural and cross-linguistic interviewing (e.g., Gordon, 2022). For example, during Jaewon’s interview, my husband and daughter were in the room and Anne sat beside him throughout the interview. My husband, a Korean national, joined the interview because I wanted to provide opportunities for translanguaging and also create a safe space for building rapport. I believed this approach was more humanizing as our family had a similar composition, and in this way as the researcher I would not appear to just be collecting information from the family, but also someone who could relate to being a member of an intermarried Korean-English speaking family. Furthermore, having my husband present as opposed to using automated translation services like Google translate or using official translators, if we struggled to understand each other, added another human element to the interview. Data Analysis Discussions, Interviews, and recorded activities were translated verbatim. When Korean was used in interviews or in journals it was translated into English first by the researcher and reviewed by two Korean-English bilingual speakers to check for consistency and accuracy with the translation. All transcripts and audio/video data were uploaded into MAXQDA, a software program used for coding qualitative data. Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012) was used to analyze the collected data for this research project. Two rounds of data analysis were conducted. In the initial round of analysis, themes connected to FLP, such as language policies and practices in the home, parental and children’s beliefs surrounding language, and language ideologies were coded for all participants. After initial analysis, it became clear that there was a tension between family member language 21 ideologies versus the language practices observed. When revisiting the data for a second round of analysis, I focused on heteroglossic versus monolingual language ideologies and translanguaging practices in the data. The codes and their definitions are listed in Table 3 below. Table 3 Codes and Definitions Phase I Codes Definition Phase II Codes Definition Family Language Any explicit or Monolingual A language belief that Policies implicit rule related Ideologies languages are distinct to what language is to and unrelated to one be used in the home another. at any given time by family members (Curt-Christiansen, 2009) Language Practices The ways in which Heteroglossic Language belief that family members Ideologies languages are habitually use their multifaceted, fluid, languages to and interconnected communicate with (García & Li Wei, one another. 2013). Ideas or beliefs about Translanguaging Any language Language Ideologies language. Practices practices between family members where family languages were drawn on for communicative purposes. Findings Two central themes that emerged during my thematic analysis of the data were: 1) unique language beliefs among family members, and 2) translanguaging practices by all family members. In the following section, I detail each of these themes through illustrative data examples to underscore the diverse language ideologies among family members and the translanguaging practices within one intermarried Korean/English speaking family residing in Korea. 22 Unique Language Ideologies The family members in this study had unique language ideologies from each other. In this section, the language ideologies of all family members, starting with the parents and concluding with the children are shared. Figure 1 below represents the spectrum of heteroglossic and monoglossic ideologies that family members hold. The left side of the figure represents heteroglossic ideologies, and the right side monoglossic ideologies. Family members are placed according to the degree in which they appeared to hold these two ideologies. Figure 1 Spectrum of Family Member’s Language Ideologies Jaewon Among the family members, Jaewon appeared to have the strongest translanguaging beliefs and stances in the family. This may have been due to his extended period of living in Europe where the fluid movement of people and languages, especially on university campuses and big cities is the norm (Vogel, 2018). During his 15-year sojourn, he was an international student and worker in Germany and France. Jaewon had multiple language learning experiences during this time where he learned each nation’s language as well as ‘a little’ English. When describing his language beliefs, Jaewon’s explanation reflected a translanguaging stance. Jaewon explained that languages themselves were not important, but rather the act of expressing oneself was paramount to communication. In Excerpt 1, taken from Jaewon’s description of his language portrait, he explains his belief: 23 Excerpt 1 To me, language is ….. “(he writes a sentence on his language portrait) It ist ne pas impossible dass die sprche [sprechen] different est. “[What he has written] is okay in German, but it is a little strange in French, but people will understand. Even though it is not perfect, people will understand. So, I mean language is not important. The important thing is the willingness to communicate. Jaewon integrated German, French, and English words to illustrate his point that language itself is not important but rather a desire to communicate. Though the sentence he created is not purely in any one language it would be understood by a German, French, or English speaker. This view of communication goes beyond the borders of named languages, a common argument of those who argue for a heteroglossic view of bilingualism (e.g., García & Li Wei, 2013). A heteroglossic view of bilingualism is one that acknowledges that languages are multifaceted, fluid, and interconnected (García & Li Wei, 2013). By showing his knowledge of multiple languages and using them to convey one thought, he demonstrated to his children a flexible usage of language where words, grammar, or dialect are not as important as getting their message across. In this way, Jaewon rejects monoglossic language ideologies and advances heteroglossic ideologies which are consistent with translanguaging. Jaewon further explained his beliefs about language while sharing his language portrait with his family. Excerpt 2 You call your mom, mommy. Mama, mommy, papa, appa (아빠). It sounds similar. Isn’t it strange? ‘Casa’ in Spanish and Italian are the same. So, in my opinion language is not important. I think language is another form of a dialect…Sometimes we have a hard time 24 understanding all kinds of dialects in our own country. But if we have a strong desire to communicate, people will understand even though they made a mistake in grammar or use a wrong word. Humanum erae est... To err is human. Through Jaewon’s sharing of his language beliefs, he extends the meaning of language beyond the word level but to an unseen level where humans communicate beyond strict lexical rules. As Jaewon continued his explanation, he began to use hand gestures and movements, showing signs of hunger and frustration, without the use of words. He asked his children if they understood his gestures. They nodded their heads in agreement. Using these semiotic gestures, Jaewon further illustrated his point that language itself is not important or a barrier to human communication, but rather individuals could be understood beyond their words. During his individual interview, Jaewon continued to take on a translanguaging stance when asked about the language(s) or FLPs he would initiate in his home when the family moved to Canada. In Excerpt 3, we see Jaewon’s explanation on how he imagines the family will communicate when they first arrive in Canada to live. Excerpt 3 For the moment, they [the children] have to learn English first, which is [the] same for me as well. So, my children are not perfect in Korean but when they go and live in Canada, because they have to learn English, we will use English as much as possible and I will speak the language of my convenience at that moment. I won’t be restrained by the rule that English should be used. Children would be able to learn English if I do so. For now, therefore, I am planning to mix Korean and English. Although Jaewon believed that his children should focus on English when they move to Canada, he said that he would not be ‘restrained’ by a rule of English only. Among his family 25 members, Jaewon perceived himself to be the least proficient in English, and in this excerpt, appears to be giving himself space and time to learn English. The excerpt also suggests that he viewed his role as a Korean speaker to be important for his children and that ‘mixing’ Korean and English is not something that will be confusing or negative for his children’s language growth in either language. Therefore, Jaewon’s beliefs reflect a translanguaging stance; it is a stance that leaves space for his children’s and his own language growth in English and Korean. Anne Anne, on the other hand, had language ideologies which were more monolingual in nature. This could be seen when she talked about her own Korean language learning. Through her experience of learning Korean and living in Korea, she believed she found a new perspective and understanding of herself and others that she felt she would not have had if she had never left Canada. When asked about her views on learning Korean, she reflected in her second interview: Excerpt 4 So, I thought [learning Korean], for me it’s essential…and also, it’s fun. It’s really fun to learn a language and compare how you say things in different languages and the different nuances. In Anne’s explanation of her desire to learn Korean she saw her learning of Korean as additive bilingualism as she was in Korea and was adding this new repertoire on top of her already established English proficiency. Additionally, in Anne’s language portrait description, she described the English and Korean languages as separate and distinct to each other (See dissertation article 3 for Anne’s portrait and full description). Anne explained how the languages were both in her body, but unlike Jaewon, they were represented by different colors and shapes and met in some similar areas of her body but were realized in different ways. Korean 26 was often seen as something confusing or challenging, whereas English was symbolized in her heart and in stars above her head. Anne’s separating of the languages which contrasts Jaewon’s heteroglossic views of language, may be due to Anne learning Korean at an older age than Jaewon learning German and French. It may also have to do with her role in Korea as an English teacher which reinforced the ideology of English’s ‘otherness’ (Park, 2009). Rose Rose’s language ideologies encompassed both monoglossic and heteroglossic ideologies. In her language portrait (see dissertation article 3) she explained that she drew her face as the Korean flag because she said that she thinks a lot in Korean. Rose also represented her languages in her body as separate in the head (Korean) and in the chest (English), and they swirled together in her stomach. When asked to describe more about her language portrait in her second interview, Rose described her languages further: Excerpt 5: Heather: I was hoping you could explain more about your language portrait. I was curious, you mentioned that your feet and shorts were a mix of Korean and English and between them (her legs) was energy. Can you tell me more about why you chose to put energy between them? Rose: Well, I feel like… I feel like if there's the mix Korean and English at the top and bottom [of her body]. To connect them you need a bit of energy. And just in my whole body, I need some energy. In her description of her languages, Rose explained that although her languages were mixed in certain areas of her body, they were not spread throughout her whole body and did not move, as explained during the portrait discussion, without energy or feelings. This implies that 27 some effort was needed when she used her languages, and this effort seemed most needed with English since she expressed struggling with English, especially as a school subject. Rose explained that because she was Korean-Canadian, her classmates and teachers assumed she was good at English, but she felt this was not the case. “In fact, there are so many people better than me at English” (Interview 1). This shows the monolingual view of a balanced bilingual that her peers and teachers placed on Rose leading her to perceive she could not live up to those expectations. This suggests that the larger discourses and institutions in Korea have monolingual views of bilinguals which can cause bilinguals to view themselves as needing to speak two separate languages (García & Li Wei, 2013) with equal proficiency. In this way, the monolingual ideologies in Korea reinforced ideologies that conflicted with Rose’s own understanding of her bilingualism, causing a possible conflict between heteroglossic and monoglossic language ideologies within her. Jack Jack had strong monolingual ideas about language which appeared at a young age. In Excerpt 6, taken directly from Anne’s Journal Entry 4, she reflected on how Jack felt about her speaking Korean when he was young and his current views on her Korean: Excerpt 6 Jack would actually not like it if I spoke any Korean to them [Jack and Rose] (and I rarely did). And he certainly never spoke Korean to me. I have written down in my book that when Jack was around two or three he said to me ‘Mummy, you shouldn’t say 변기 (byungi), you should say POTTY in English! I asked him now if he remembers why he didn’t like me speaking Korean to him and he said maybe it was because it was a little ‘scary’ or ‘creepy’--maybe because then it 28 would seem like I wasn’t his real mother or something, it was just so unfamiliar to communicate with each other in Korean. Then he added that he still doesn’t like it if I speak Korean to him now, he finds it ‘creepy’ but for a different reason now, ‘It just sounds so weird and I don’t want other people to hear it!’ In this journal entry, Anne reflects on Jack’s reaction to her speaking Korean when he was young as well as his current reaction. Anne may have used byungi to communicate with Jack when he was young because she felt that he may have known this word from daycare or heard it used by Jaewon or Jack’s Korean grandparents. Yet Jack’s response, being upset with her for using Korean, reinforced Anne’s usage of only English with him, indicative of the role that children have in FLPs and practices (e.g., Fogle, 2012; Gafaranga, 2010; Said & Hua, 2019). As Anne asked Jack why he responded negatively to her Korean usage in the past, he might have associated English with his mother so it was scary to hear her use Korean. Now that he’s 11-years-old, the reason that he seemed to not like her using Korean was no longer because it was ‘scary’ but embarrassing since he does not want others to hear her speak Korean as he is aware of her errors and accent. Although his past reason for his preference of Anne speaking English may have been linked to emotions, his current views reflected local ideologies about the Korean and English languages. As the English and Korean languages are seen as different from each other, and English is also a symbol of linguistic and cultural capital, Jack appears to prefer his mother to conforming to this role. Furthermore, Jack’s language portrait (see dissertation article 3) and its description suggest monolingual ideas about his languages. Compared to Rose who combined her languages in parts of her body, Jack only placed English in his heart, whereas the rest of his body was broken down into distinct Korean repertoires. This suggests that Jack took on more 29 monolingual ideologies possibly from the larger social discourses than his sister (see Park, 2009). This could be because of his age and visiting Canada less often than Rose or based on his individual identity which is examined further in article 3 of this dissertation. Despite the diversity of family member’s language ideologies, the family tended to interact by drawing on English and Korean in their interactions together suggesting more translanguaging practices which conflicted with the monolingual ideologies present among most of the family members. Translanguaging Practices Anne and Jaewon both stated that they had only spoken their L1 to their children since birth but there was never a strict enforcement of this rule. Anne remarked in her interview that she never questioned speaking English to her children because she felt that it was the only way she could really bond and connect with them. Jaewon expressed that because Anne’s Korean was proficient enough, they tended to speak more in Korea with each other accept if there was a misunderstanding or Anne did not understand him. Rose and Jack both stated they felt more comfortable with speaking and reading in Korean, but English was an integral part of their home life, as Anne spoke to them in English and was in the home more than Jaewon who would often return home from work at 10 p.m. Monday-Friday and 6 p.m. on Saturdays. Despite the OPOL practices that the parents and children stated they followed (see Figure 1 to view what family members claimed were their language practices), the actual language practices that family members shared in interviews and observed in videos were more reflective of translanguaging practices. Figure 2 below represents the stated and actual language practices in the home. The triangles on the left represents the stated language practices of family members used when talking to each other. The image on the right represents the actual language practices 30 used by family members to communicate. The dotted line represents the fluid use of the family’s languages to communicate with each other which took multiple forms, such as writing, listening, and speaking. Figure 2 Family Member’s Stated and Enacted Language Practices Note. The dotted lines represent the usage of both languages with family members. Family members were observed listening and interacting together using translanguaging practices on several of the video/audio recordings shared. During the family’s playing of the board game, Sorry, the children began explaining to Jaewon, who had never played the game, how to play in Korean. Jaewon asked a question about the rules in Korean and the children both responded in Korean. Then Anne repeated the rules in English to him, emphasizing the rule which he questioned. Jaewon acknowledged the Korean and English explanations and proceeded to play the game. Anne in this instance was observed both participating in the Korean conversation and leveraging English to emphasize the rules to Jaewon. Jaewon also took in the explanation of the rules in both languages. After playing Sorry, Anne described in her journal what happened after she had stopped recording the interaction which she felt was a common experience in their family and wanted to share. 31 Excerpt 7 Jaewon had taken a pillow to lean against and called it his ‘왕배개’ (king pillow) because he was like a 왕 (wang/king) with such an awesome pillow. So later in the game I said something about his 왕(wang) pillow (I said ‘king’ in Korean, ‘pillow’ in English). Maybe I said something like, ‘Daddy’s like a 왕 wang with his big pillow’. Then Jaewon started talking about how his belly was not so fat, that he was actually losing weight lately (he said this in Korean). Rose, Jack, and I all laughed because obviously his response didn’t match with what I had said. Somehow he heard the word pillow in English but instead of thinking 배개 (bae- gae), pillow, he changed it to 배(bae), belly, in his mind, so then gave a nonsensical response. Jaewon also thought it was funny when we told him what I had actually said. These little miscommunications happen quite regularly between us! In this interaction, the family’s translanguaging practices led to a misunderstanding and humor in the creative space that their language repertoires allowed. Jaewon used the term, ‘king pillow’ during this interaction, which exemplified his creative use of English and Korean as 왕배개 (wang bae-gae) ‘king pillow’ is grammatically correct in Korean but is not a typical expression or collocate. This connects with Jaewon’s beliefs that language does not have to be correct but rather convey a meaning, which he does by drawing on his family’s languages; However, in this interaction the meaning was eventually lost when he misunderstood Anne. The miscommunication gets clarified for Jaewon, and the family finds the miscommunication comical. In these examples we can see how translanguaging practices appear within the 32 experiences of family members as a unit and are indicative of the creative potential of flexible language use in the multilingual home. Translanguaging practices were also found in the ways that Anne communicated with her children. Although Anne tended to speak only English to her children, she was found to leverage Korean with her family all of whom expressed a preference for Korean. One example of this leveraging of language was explained in her journal entry and shared in Excerpt 9: Excerpt 9 For very important things I write it down in Korean and put it on the fridge or send a text message! (E.g.) What exactly I expect them to get done by 6 p.m. regarding schoolwork or chores. Just to make sure it is very clear. For Rose and Jack that is not because I don’t think they understand my spoken English, it is more a strategy for accountability which I would probably use even if we all only spoke English. But I do that for Jaewon sometimes when it’s really important to get something done, in that case it is because I want to make sure he understands (and I would write it in Korean, not English). Though Anne perceived that her children’s English speaking and comprehension were strong, she noted in her interviews that their reading and writing in English were not on par with their Korean. Therefore, when she wanted to make sure a task was completed, she utilized Korean. This was also the case when communicating important information to Jaewon as well. In those instances, she made sure to use Korean to eliminate the chances of confusion. In Excerpt 9, Anne is seen leveraging the familial languages to make meaning and allowed for family members to draw on their languages which is indicative of a translanguaging practice. 33 When beginning this study, I had asked Anne to record a family meal. She was very curious to listen to and observe how the family interacted in their languages. During her first interview she played the audio recording for me and explained: Excerpt 10 It seems that we have a mix of language. And with Rose and Jack, it depends on who they’re talking to. So at one point, I was saying something in English. And then, Jaewon was answering in Korean. And then Jack was answering in English. And then Jack asked Jaewon a question, so he spoke in Korean. And then I talked to Rose in English and she answered me back in English. And then Jaewon said something in Korean, and I answered in Korean or English…I don’t remember which. Yeah, anyway, it seems to be a mix actually….but definitely Rose and Jack don’t talk to Jaewon in English. It’s weird if they talk to him in English and it’s weird if I talk to them in Korean. From this request, Anne began reflecting more and listening to how language was actually being practiced in the home. She noted the children’s language practices with their parents and how deviating from these languages would be ‘weird’ on the part of the children and parent. Yet this exercise allowed Anne to stop and listen to how the family interacted together and consciously perceive how they constantly use language flexibly to make meaning and connect as a family. Discussion This study highlighted the appearance of heteroglossic and monoglossic ideologies that existed alongside translanguaging practices in a bilingual family residing in Korea. Interestingly, each family member was found to have unique language ideologies that were not always consistent with their actual language practices. Jaewon was the only family member whose language 34 ideologies and practices were consistent which were heteroglossic in nature. Anne tended to have monolingual views of language learning and perceived monolingual practices, however, throughout the observations and indicated by her journal entries, she regularly took part in translanguaging practices. Rose’s language ideologies consisted of both monolingual and heteroglossic ideologies as she separated her languages in parts of her language portrait yet combined them in other areas. Jack on the other hand, had very clear monolingual ideologies about languages as viewed in his language portrait and in his expectations of his parent’s language practices. Korean language ideologies were found to impact the family’s language ideologies of Anne and the children. As Anne’s job was teaching English, and English is seen as a language of ‘other’ and not linked to a Korean identity (Park, 2009), she viewed the languages as distinct and inherently different. Rose had both monolingual and heteroglossic ideologies likely based on her own language experiences and those she encountered in school where she was assumed to be a balanced bilingual. Jack had strong monolingual ideologies about his languages. He did not like Anne using Korean with him or in front of L1 Korean speakers. As Anne’s L1 is English, which is a language of cultural and linguistic capital in Korea (Yoo, 2005), Jack may have felt that when Anne used English in public it was less embarrassing because she was fluent in English. At the same time, Jack may have been influenced by the monolingual ideologies in Korea that connect the Korean language to its people even from a young age (Yoo, 2005; Park 2009). This is related to Althusser’s (1972) concept of interpellation, or the idea that institutions and their discourses and ideologies call individuals to practice certain identities, and in this case, caused Jack to identify his mother in a particular way. Despite Anne’s long sojourn in Korea, her phenotype (White) compared to L1 Korean speakers differentiated her which may have led Jack 35 to categorize her in this way. This compartmentalizing of phenotype and language expectations of White spouses of Koreans has been found in other studies (e.g., Reichmuth, 2020). Whether family members had monoglossic or heteroglossic language ideologies, the family engaged in translanguaging practices when together. As translanguaging acknowledges the complex repertoires that multilinguals draw on with various individuals in their lives (García & Kleifgen, 2019), this can be seen as a dynamic practice in this family where each member draws on their knowledge of languages to make meaning and sense of what is happening during interactions with one another. As Li Wei (2011) showed, translanguaging allows for the generation of new ideas and allows for creativity. Translanguaging in this family not only generated a creative space for family members, as observed when Jaewon described his ‘king pillow’, but also added to the humor and fun in the family’s relationship with one another. Just as the parents reported in De Houwer’s (2007) Flanders study, this intermarried family was not observed following strict OPOL policies. The actual translanguaging practices they enacted supported language maintenance and resisted a language shift which often occurs when strict language policies are not in place (e.g., Altman et al., 2014). These language practices, however, did not necessarily translate back to family member’s language ideologies. This means that there was a disconnect between language ideologies and practices in the home. Therefore, whether they were cognizant of their stance or not, the parents translanguaging practices supported their children’s linguistic growth in both languages. Therefore, the taking up of a translanguaging stance among parents will reduce the pressure to attain balanced bilingualism in bilingual children and allow them to push back on monolingual ideologies they may face in schools and society. 36 Implications As the use of audio recording her family’s language conversation helped Anne reflect on her family’s language practices, having bilingual family members listen to and reflect on their own language practices will make those practices apparent for family members and allow for reflection on these practices. The realization of actual practices is important when parents or caregivers consider supporting their bilingual children’s language identities, especially in contexts that support monolingual ideologies of language like Korea. Furthermore, it is important that caregivers view these practices, especially if they are translanguaging practices, as positive which a translanguaging stance would support. Having a positive view of the inherent translanguaging practices in bilingual families will allow bilingual children to push back on monolingual ideologies that they likely will encounter in social spaces like schools. This study has implications for teachers who need to be aware that the bilingual students in their classroom will each possess unique language ideologies. This means that teachers need to be sensitive to how bilingual students perceive language and are affected by language ideologies, especially those that define bilinguals as balanced or equally proficient in their languages. Such ideologies will cause students to question their own bilingual identity and language proficiency; It can also lead to a reinforcement of monolingual ideologies for these children. This is problematic because it can lead to a language shift to the local language or contribute to negative feelings about children’s own language abilities. Teachers can support bilingual children by modeling translanguaging practices and taking a translanguaging stance in their classroom (García, et al, 2017). Furthermore, teachers can create a more inclusive classroom, and reframe English as a means of communication as opposed to an external subject 37 that is not a part of a Korean identity (Park, 2009), which will promote a more inclusive classroom environment. This study also has implications for the field of FLP, as this study is the first to look at all members in a bilingual intermarried family residing in Korea and their language ideologies and practices. More studies need to look at the Korean context and how language ideologies and language practices in the home are enacted in this context. Longitudinal studies that look at a family’s practices over time can give a long-term view of language ideologies and practices as they may shift over time as children age. Observing these shifts over time is important to understanding how and if language ideologies and practices change and what may contribute to that maintenance or shift. Also, observing the language ideologies and practices in multiple families could give a broader perspective of Korean/English speaking families residing in Korea since little is known of their experiences; Their nuanced perspectives and experiences can give a fuller picture of how Korean/English speaking families practice, manage, and negotiate language on the individual and familial level. 38 REFERENCES 39 REFERENCES Althusser, L. (1972). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Monthly Review Press. Altman, C., Burstein Feldman, Z., Yitzhaki, D., Armon Lotem, S., & Walters, J. (2014) Family language policies, reported language use and proficiency in Russian – Hebrew bilingual children in Israel. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(3), 216- 234. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.852561 American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Balanced bilingual. In APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved March 31, 2022, from https://dictionary.apa.org/balanced- bilingual Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Busch, B. (2010). School language profiles: Valorizing linguistic resources in heteroglossic situations in South Africa. Language and Education, 24(4), 283-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500781003678712 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (p. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004 Barron-Hauwaert, S. (2004). Language strategies for bilingual families: The one-parent-one- language approach. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.7916/salt.v5i2.1578 Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (4th ed.) Sage Publications. De Houwer, A. (1999). Environmental factors in early bilingual development: The role of parental beliefs and attitudes. Bilingualism and Migration, 75-96. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807820.75 De Houwer, A. (2007). Parental language input patterns and children's bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(3), 411-424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070221 Dyson, A.H. & Genishi, C. (2005) On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. Teachers College Press. Fogle, L.W. 2012. Second language socialization and child agency: Adoptive family talk. Multilingual Matters. 40 García, O. (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Wiley/Blackwell. García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English language learners. Teachers College Press. García, O., Johnson, S.I., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Caslon, Inc. García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2019). Translanguaging and literacies. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(4), 553-571. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.286 García, O., & Li Wei (2013). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan. García, O., & Torres-Guevara, R. (2010). Monoglossic ideologies and language policies in the education of US Latinas/os. Handbook of Latinos and education: Theory, research, and practice. Routledge. Gafaranga, J. (2010). Medium request: Talking language shift into being. Language in Society, 39(2), 241–270. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404510000047 Gordon, R. R. (2022). Translanguaging pedagogy as methodology: Leveraging the linguistic and cultural repertoires of researchers and participants to mutually construct meaning and build rapport. In P. Holmes, J. Reynolds, & S. Ganassin (Eds.), The politics of researching multilingually. Multilingual Matters. Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Harvard University Press. Grosjean, F. (1994). Individual bilingualism. The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford Press. Grosjean, F. (2012) Bilingual Life and Reality. Harvard University Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press. Heller, M. (2007). Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A Social Approach, (pp. 1–22). Palgrave Macmillan. Higgins, C. (2019). The dynamics of Hawaiian speakerhood in the family. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, (255), 45-72. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2018-2003 Leopold, W. (1939). Speech Development of a Bilingual Child: A Linguist’s Record. Northwestern University. 41 King, K., & Fogle, L. (2006). Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents' perspectives on family language policy for additive bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(6), 695-712. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb362.0 King, K. A., Fogle, L., & Logan‐Terry, A. (2008). Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 907-922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00076.x King, R. (1998). Nationalism and language reform in Korea: The questione della lingua in precolonial Korea. In T.R. Tangherlini, & H.I. Pai (Eds.), Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity. Institute of East Asian Studies. Korean Research Monograph 26, (pp. 33–72). Kwon, J. (2019). Parent–Child translanguaging among transnational immigrant families in museums. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1689918 Lee, M. (2008). Mixed race peoples in the Korean national imaginary and family. Korean Studies, 32, 56–85. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23718931 Lee, S. (2013). Multicultural education and language ideology in South Korea. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 28(1), 43-60. https://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol28/iss1/7 Lim, T. (2010). Rethinking belongingness in Korea: Transnational migration, “migrant marriages” and the politics of multiculturalism. Pacific Affairs, 83(1), 51- 71. https://doi.org/10.5509/201083151 Li Wei (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics,43, 1222– 1235. Macnamara, J. (1967). The bilingual’s linguistic performance—a psychological overview. Journal of Social Issues, 23, 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4560.1967.tb00576.x Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305 Palviainen, A., & Boyd, S. (2013). Unity in discourse, diversity in practice: The one person one language policy in bilingual families. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.). Successful family language policy: Parents, children, and educators in interaction. Springer. Park, N.S. (1989). Language purism in Korea today. In B. Jernudd, & M.J. Shapiro (Eds.). The politics of language purism. Mouton de Gruyter. Park, J.S.Y. (2009). The local construction of a global language: Ideologies of English in South Korea. Mouton de Gruyter. 42 Paulsrud, B., & Straszer, B. (2018). We know the same languages and then we can mix them: A child’s perspectives on everyday translanguaging in the family. In Translanguaging as Everyday Practice, (pp. 49-68). Springer, Cham. Peal, E., and Lambert, W. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093840 Piller, I., & Gerber, L. (2021). Family language policy between the bilingual advantage and the monolingual mindset. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(5), 622-635. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1503227 Purkarthofer, J., & Steien, G.B. (2019). “Prétendre comme si on connaît pas une autre langue que le Swahili”: Multilingual parents in Norway on change and continuity in their family language policies. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, (255), 109-131. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2018-2005 Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism. 2nd ed. Basil Blackwell Ronjat, J. 1913. Le De´veloppement du Langage Observe´ chez un Enfant Bilingue [The Observed Development of Language in a Bilingual Child]. H. Champion. Said, F., & Zhu, H. (2017). The strategic use of address terms in multilingual interactions during family mealtimes. In A. De Fina, D. Ikizoglu, & J. Wegner (Eds.), Diversity and super- diversity: Sociocultural linguistic perspectives, (pp. 81-96). Georgetown University Press. Simpson, A. (2007). Language and national identity in Asia: Thematic Introduction. In A. Simpson (Ed.), Language and national identity in Asia (pp. 1-30). Oxford University Press. Smith-Christmas, C. (2019). When X doesn’t mark the spot: the intersection of language shift, identity and family language policy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 255(1), 133-158. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2018-2006 Spolsky, B. (2012) Family language policy – The critical domain, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 3-11, https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2011.638072 Spolsky, B. (2004). Language Policy. Cambridge University Press. Song, K. (2016). “Okay, I will say in Korean and then in American”: Translanguaging practices in bilingual homes. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 16(1), 84-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798414566705 Tannenbaum, M. (2012). Family Language Policy as a form of coping and defense mechanism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2011.638074 43 Vogl, U. (2018). Standard language ideology and multilingualism: Results from a survey among European students. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 185-208. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2016-0016 Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9- 30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039 Wilson, S. (2020) Family language policy through the eyes of bilingual children: the case of French heritage speakers in the UK. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(2), 121-139. Yamamoto, M. (2001). Language use in interlingual families: A Japanese-English sociolinguistic study. Multilingual Matters. Yoo, O. K. (2005). Discourses of English as an official language in a monolingual society: The case of South Korea. University of Hawai'i Second Language Studies Paper, 23(2). http://hdl.handle.net/10125/40671 44 ARTICLE 2 Transnational Knowledge and Bonding in Multilingual Families Introduction The field of family language policy (FLP) is concerned with the intergenerational transmission of family languages (King, et al., 2008). Studies on FLP have explored the influence of contextual language ideologies (e.g., Curdt-Christiansen, 2009), language practices (e.g., Spolsky, 2004) and parent’s language beliefs (De Houwer, 1999) which influence parent’s decisions for FLPs. Fogle (2013) pushed the field to consider parental ethnotheories or the beliefs that parents have about childrearing and children as an influence behind parent’s FLP decision making. In this article I push the field further by considering the hybrid childrearing practices created by parent’s transnational knowledge alongside their culturally bounded ethnotheories for language maintenance in intermarried families. I illuminate this by examining an intermarried Korean/Canadian multilingual family in South Korea (hereafter Korea) in supporting their children’s English language acquisition. Korean Cultural Beliefs and Language Learning Much has been written on the education fever in Korea (e.g., Hyun et al., 2003; Kim & Jung, 2019; Lee, 2018). Education fever refers to the zeal of parents to provide as many educational opportunities as possible for their children in the belief that it will lead to their social advancement (Lee & Shouse, 2011). This education fever can be traced back to Korean philosophical and traditional values. As Korean society is founded on Confucianism it rests on the values of filial piety, humanness, and ritual consciousness. Among these values, filial piety or the respect for parents, is considered the most important and the seed of the other values (Lee, 2011.) Therefore, Koreans put great value on the parent-child bond (Shin & Koh, 2005). This 45 bond translates into the children’s success representing the family’s fame or prosperity (Lee, 2011). The duty of the student (child) is to study while the parent’s job is to support their education whether financially or by finding the best tutors or hagwons (learning institutions) to support their success (Kim & Reichmuth, 2021; Shin & Koh, 2005). The education fever culminates around one high stakes exam, the College Scholastic Aptitude Test (CSAT) which is taken by high school seniors. When taken as part of the regular admissions process for entering university, this exam largely determines the university that a student can enter, their future career prospects and salary, as well as marriage prospects (Cho, 2017; Lee & Larson, 2000; Park, 2009; Ra, 2019). The CSAT influences every level of Korean schooling from formal schooling to the existence of a shadow education industry, an industry that provides academic learning outside of formal schooling to allow students to advance through high school successfully to attend the college of their choice (Stevenson & Baker, 1992; Buchmann et al., 2010). The shadow education industry in Korea consists of private tutoring and hagwons. In 2018, a total of $16.8 billion dollars was spent on hagwons for elementary to high school aged children (Yang, 2019). Although Korean students have consistently scored high on international level assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), they report low on school and life satisfaction compared to their peers in other Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Korean students have also been found to have more academic pressure than their European counterparts and reported more school-work related anxiety than the OECD average (Kim, 2015). This has led the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Children 46 (UNCRC) to recommend that the Korean government re-evaluate their education system to reduce the stress endured by Korean students (Choi, et al., 2019). Current trends in globalization and Korea’s desire to be a player on the global economic stage, has led Koreans to value English as a part of the CSAT and for job recruitment (Cho, 2017; Lee & Larson, 2000; Park, 2009; Ra, 2019). It is not unheard of for Korean children to begin attending hagwons to learn English from pre-school (Lee, et al., 2021; Shin, et al., 2019) and continue attending English hagwons. Parents who can afford to, send their children abroad to study English at summer camps while their children also attend English hagwons during the school year (Lee, et al, 2021). Some families have been divided with the mom and children living abroad, typically in North America, while dad lives in Korea to earn money, a so called ‘goose father” (Lee, 2011). In Korean society, putting children’s needs and futures above those of the parents is common even at the expense of the marital bond (Shin & Koh, 2005). Separating children from their fathers for education happens because families perceive that their children will receive a good education in North America and will have an authentic English language learning experience. Since English is important at all levels of school and employment and schools tend to focus on grammar and vocabulary learning with the goal of preparing students for the CSAT, parents who can afford to send their children abroad (Cho, 2017). In response to globalization and the need for Koreans to interact in English on the global stage, the Korean government recruited L1 English speakers from the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa to teach in public schools (Jeon, 2009) to provide children access to first language (L1) English speakers. In addition to the increase of these teachers to public schools, hagwons and universities continue to recruit L1 English teachers. 47 In this context, intermarried families want to pass on the English language to their children as it holds linguistic capital for their children (Reichmuth, 2020). Therefore, families implement various family language policies (FLPs) and practices to teach English in the home. Family language policy refers to how languages are managed, negotiated, and taught in multilingual families (King, et al., 2008). Theoretical Framework This article draws upon ethnotheories and transnationalism as the theoretical lens to record and analyze the intermarried multilingual parent’s childrearing and language practices. These theories help elucidate the hybrid culture that emerges in intermarried families. Culture and Childrearing in Intermarried Multilingual Families FLP as a field is interested in the management, negotiation, and practices of familial languages, with the goal of intergenerational transmission of a minoritized language (King, et al., 2008). FLP draws on the disciplines of language policy, child language acquisition, bilingualism, and child language socialization (King, et al., 2008). Research on FLP highlights parental language beliefs (e.g., De Houwer, 1999), the influence of local language ideologies (e.g., Curdt- Christiansen, 2009) and language practices (e.g., Spolsky, 2004) on children’s language outcomes. Pushing the field of FLP further, Fogle (2013) argued that parent ethnotheories should be considered separate from local language ideologies and to acknowledge their influence on FLPs and practices. Her work draws on Harkness and Super’s (2006) parental ethnotheories which they define as cultural beliefs about childrearing and the role of children. These ethnotheories have cultural implications and vary between cultures. Harkness and Super define ethnotheories as the “nexus through which elements of the larger culture are filtered and are an important part of parenting practices and everyday life for children and families” (p. 62). 48 Ethnotheories are assumptions, values, and culturally patterned views that act as a lens to understanding children’s patterns of behavior (Coppens, et al., 2020). These ethnotheories guide parents’ approaches to caregiving and the socialization of their children (Coppens, et al., 2020). In Fogle’s study, transnational adoptive parents were found to make FLP decisions not only based on their language beliefs, but also on perceived children’s emotions and their own desires to bond with their adopted child(ren) (Fogle, 2013). Studies have found that language usage can bond or un-bond children and their parents in multilingual families (Danjo, 2018; Fillmore, 2000); this bonding is tied to the emotional closeness that parents and children have to one another. Tannenbaum (2012) described how some parents create FLPs as an emotional response to perceived external pressures in the new environment; yet how parents choose to bond and parental educational beliefs are linked to their upbringings and home cultures (De Houwer, 1999), these can influence the decisions of the intermarried families in Korea since the non- Korean spouse does not come from a competitive educational environment and is also an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher in Korea. However, living in a transnational context, having knowledge of both their home culture and Korean culture, may influence their child rearing practices and their beliefs of language learning that are not tied to one culture or nation. Transnationalism Transnationalism involves the continuous movement of individuals, goods, capital, and ideas across global borders (Portes, et al., 1999). Individuals who move across national borders are referred to as transnationals (Levitt, 2001). In this study, I define transnationals as anyone who crosses national borders, cultural borders, and linguistic boarders. Drawing on Levitt’s (2001) definition of “social remittance” researchers can understand how intermarried families construct ideas, norms, practices, and identities that are deeply affected by transnational 49 experiences. Transnationalism departs from the binaries of ‘old world’ vs. ‘new world’, or home country vs. host country, and views transnationals fluid, multiple, complex, hybrid, and multilayered linkages and interconnections as various and complex (Basch, et al., 2020; Gardner, 2012; Lam & Warriner, 2012). Transnationalism also involves the activities that form an integral part of an individual’s habitual life in a somewhat predictable pattern (Guarinzo, 1997). The transnational lens highlights the connections that individuals practice in their daily lives and routines that concurrently connects them to more than one society (Lam & Warriner, 2012). A transnational lens, it must be noted, does not mean that all individuals who have crossed borders take the same ideas or acquire the same knowledge as other transnationals, this may vary depending on homeland politics, the social class of the individual, the contexts of migration (Lam & Warriner, 2012) and the new community in which they settle. Furthermore, the ideas and knowledge that a transnational chooses can change over their lifetime (Lam & Warriner, 2012). In this paper, the ideas and knowledge that are taken up by the parent family members in the focal family is knowledge of childrearing practices and language acquisition. Currently, much transnational research focuses on the transnational experiences of Latin Americans (Levitt & Jaworsky, 2007) and young Asian immigrants (e.g., Kwon, 2019; Kwon 2020) to the United States. There is a dearth of knowledge about the transnational practices of families outside of the U.S. contexts, especially in Northeast Asia. The current study begins to fill that gap by looking at the hybrid practices developed through the translational knowledge and ethnotheories held by parents in an intermarried family residing in Korea. Figure 1 below is a visual representation of the mixing of parental ethnotheories (e.g., Coppens, et al., 2020) with transnational knowledge (e.g., Levitt, 2001). This knowledge meets 50 and filters in the local context and results in new childrearing and language practices in intermarried families. Figure 3 Parental Ethnotheories and Transnational Knowledge Methodology As there is no one way in which multilingual families can enact FLPs or how intergenerational language transmission can take place, I conducted a qualitative case study (Creswell & Poth, 2018) to explore one intermarried Korean-English speaking family and look at how the Korean father’s and the Canadian mother’s transnational knowledge and ethnotheories influenced the childrearing practices and children’s English language acquisition in a high-stakes testing climate. In particular, I selected a case study approach because it allows for the researcher to gain profound insights into the complexities of human experience (Dyson & Genshi, 2005). The questions which drove this inquiry were: 1) How did the parent’s ethnotheories and transnational knowledge influence the language practices in the home? 2) What language and parenting practices did the mother establish to teach English? 51 Positionality Statement Having spent 15 years teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in Korea in pre-K- 16 settings, I witnessed the stress of students from preschoolers to high schoolers with the rigors demanded of them to attend a top level, so called ‘SKY’ (Seoul, Korea, Yonsei) University– the top three universities in Korea. When I taught at a competitive foreign language high school, I witnessed firsthand the stress endured by adolescents. My students would attend school from 7 a.m.-10 p.m. Monday-Saturday. They were not allowed to leave campus without permission. The only permission granted was to see a doctor or to attend a hagwon (e.g., Kim & Reichmuth, 2021). There is an expression among high school students: Pass with four, fail with five. Referring to the number of hours they should spend sleeping a night to allow for maximum exam preparation (Lee & Larson, 2000). During my early years in Korea, I was not aware of the economic disparities and lack of access to English that many students faced. I first thought it was a general limitation since there were not many English speakers in Korea, but as I learned more about life in Korea, I could see how the access to English, chances for living abroad, attending hagwons, and having private tutors, were divided along socioeconomic lines and perpetuated a ‘haves’ and ‘haves not’ culture. After becoming a member of an intermarried Korean-American family, I worried about our children attending Korean schools and taking part in the competitive educational system. Having a transnational lens from growing up in the United States and teaching as an adult in the Korean school system, I have witnessed the positive and negatives of both systems- and the complexity of understanding the cultural logic in both spaces (Kim & Reichmuth, 2021). Having an insider and outsider perspective of the Korean educational system, this study reveals how one family mitigated the pressure of Korean schooling for their multilingual children through their ethnotheories and transnational knowledge. 52 Participants This article is a part of a larger dissertation that explored one intermarried multilingual family’s language policies, practices and identities. Initially three intermarried multilingual families that consisted of one L1 English speaking spouse to a Korean L1 speaker were contacted through personal social networks. These families were invited to join the study or recommend similar families to participate. Two of the three families expressed interest however one of the families had a young child who could not communicate his language experiences at the time of the study. The family highlighted in the paper consisted of Anne3, a white Canadian woman, her Korean national husband, Jaewon, and their two children, Rose (13 years old), and Jack (11 years old). I first met Anne in 2003 in Seoul, Korea and had last seen her in 2011 before inviting her to participate in this study. When approaching Anne to participate, I knew she had lived in Korea at least 20 years and that her children were in elementary and middle school so I believed that I might be able to learn a lot about their family language policies, practices, and identities living in Korea. I met Jaewon, Anne’s husband, twice in an informal setting prior to the study, and Rose once when she was two years old. I had never had the opportunity to meet Jack before data collection. At the time of data collection, Rose was just starting her first year of middle school and Jack was starting 5th grade as the Korean school year typically starts in March but because of the COVID-19 pandemic, was delayed several months. Table 4 below provides general information about each participant including their pseudonym, age, place of birth, familial role, occupation, and languages. Languages were listed in the order that participants perceived their proficiency. 3 All pseudonyms were chosen by participants, except for Jaewon’s name. Jaewon originally chose the name Bond as his pseudonym but as I am writing about bonding in this paper, I have chosen a Korean name for him to eliminate confusion between the noun and adjective of the word bond. 53 Table 4 Participant Information Participant Age Place of Familial Occupation/Grade Languages (dominant Birth Role languages listed first) Jaewon 54 Korea Dad Owns a private Korean, German, business French, English Anne 51 Canada Mom English as a Foreign English, Korean, Language (EFL) French instructor Rose 13 Korea Daughter 7th grade Korean, English Jack 11 Korea Son 5th grade Korean, English Data Collection Data for this case study were collected between June-August 2020. Data was drawn from two in-depth semi-structured hour-long interviews, participant journals, and video documentation of familial interactions, familial member daily schedule, language portraits, discussions of family language portraits (Busch, 2010), family mealtimes, and familial time spent playing board and card games. Language portraits were used as a way for all family members to describe their multilingual experiences and for them to learn about the experiences of each other. Participants also kept journals in response to prompts to elicit their feelings, experiences, and interactions with language in the home. Table 5 below shows the type and method of data collected, as well as whether or not the individual participated in the activity. 54 Table 5 Data Collected from Participants Individual Interviews Journal Language Daily Board Family Responses Portrait Schedule Games Dinner Anne Two Yes, 5 Yes, Video Yes, Yes, Video Yes, interviews times, Recording/ Google Recording, Audio file, Seesaw/ Image Drive Google Google Google Google Drive Drive Drive Drive Jaewon One No Yes, Video Yes, Yes, Video Yes, interview Recording/ Google Recording, Audio file, Image Drive Google Google Google Drive Drive Drive Rose Two Yes, 4 Yes, Video Yes, Yes, Video Yes, Interviews times, Recording/ Google Recording, Audio file, Seesaw Image Drive Google Google Google Drive Drive Drive Jack Two Yes, 4 Yes, Video Yes, Yes, Video Yes, Interviews times, Recording/ Google Recording, Audio file, Seesaw Image Drive Google Google Google Drive Drive Drive Due to travel restrictions surrounding COVID-19, I was unable to visit the family in Korea; therefore, I utilized online platforms such as Seesaw, an education tool that allows participants to upload written, audio, or video recordings, and a shared Google Drive folder to collect journal, video, and audio data. Data Analysis For the data analysis, I first transcribed all the interview data, and translated Korean data from Korean into English. Korean material was translated and reviewed by me and two other Korean-English speakers to check for accuracy and consistency with the translation. Anne, Rose, and Jack used mainly English in their interviews whereas Jaewon fluctuated between Korean and 55 English the most during his interview. Therefore, his interview data needed the most translating. All transcripts and audio/video data were uploaded into MAXQDA, a software coding program that supports qualitative analysis. A Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012) was used to analyze the collected data to capture the participants transnational experiences and bonding practices for language transmission. Two rounds of data analysis were conducted. In the initial round of analysis, data connected to FLP, such as language policies and practices in the home were coded. After initial analysis, coded segments were re-analyzed, and the themes of transnational experience/knowledge and bonding were found to be connected to language practices. In Table 6 below, the codes and their definitions are listed. Table 6 Codes and Definitions Code Definition Family Language Policies Any spoken or unspoken rule that parents implemented for the languages used in the home (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009). Family Language Practices Any instance in which language was used by one or more family member to communicate with another. Transnational experience/knowledge Any form of childrearing/language practice or policy that the parents learned from living abroad. Ethnotheories Any assumptions made by parents’ from their cultural upbringing that influenced their language or childrearing practices. Bonding Any practice that made family members emotionally closer to one another. 56 Considering validity, for the descriptions and interpretations of the data, I employed triangulation, using multiple data sources (Stake, 2005) including the video and audio recordings as well as journal entries to verify the transnational experiences and practices of the participants. Furthermore, their own interview data, when triangulated with other family members, helped to verify participant beliefs, practices, and emotions. Findings Transnational Knowledge and Ethnotheories Jaewon Jaewon, the father of the family, was an L1 Korean speaker born and raised in Korea. He lived in Germany and France over a 15-year period where he studied German and French, interior design, and worked. At 35 he moved back to Korea and married Anne in 2005. Jaewon stated that his language beliefs for his children stemmed from his experience learning German and French in Europe where he observed differences in how Italians and Spaniards engaged in communicative language activities in an L2. These practices departed from how he learned English in Korean schools. Jaewon explained in his interview: Excerpt 1 What’s amazing is that to speak English, Koreans always tend to focus on grammar in language courses. And most Korean people think just about grammar. And then they worry to speak. ‘Oh, what can I do, I can’t speak English very well. Oh, I’m ashamed’. But what I observed in Europe with Italians and Spaniards, when they spoke, their grammar was always wrong, but they spoke well. From his language learning experience growing up in Korea where he felt strict adherence to grammatical rules caused Koreans to hesitate and concern when speaking English, 57 and then observing differences in how some Europeans acquired an L2 allowed for Jaewon to take on a new perspective of language acquisition. Jaewon’s multiple language learning experiences in various contexts provided him insight into diverse ways of acquiring a language that he would not have had if he had only experienced learning language in Korea. Language learning was not about intelligence which he stated many Koreans believed but was related to necessity and desire which he experienced learning German and French in Germany and then more French while working in France. This idea of necessity or desire to learn a language from his transnational experience carried over to his educational philosophy for his children. He explained, “[some parents say], you should study hard and become a lawyer. Absolutely not…You do what you want and what you most love.” Allowing his children freedom to pursue their own goals and interests is in contrast with traditional Korean norms where parents choose their children’s path (Lee, 2011). Instead of focusing on his children’s schoolwork, Jaewon explained that he would ask them questions about topics that they were interested in and then discuss the topic afterward. He explained in his interview that he would tell them: Excerpt 2 You check YouTube, or the Internet, and tell me tomorrow about mountain biking or anything. Then for example, my son would look overnight, and look at a lot of information and he would tell me what he found. So, I see how effective that is. Jaewon focused the needs and interests of his children when considering his children’s learning, just as he experienced that the need and interest of learning German and French allowed him to learn those languages when he was abroad. He assumed his children would likely 58 do most of their research in Korean but that they were not limited to only Korean information. If they utilized their English knowledge as well, it was their choice. Jaewon’s language acquisition beliefs were also related to his own experience with competitive Korean schooling and what he observed from his high school peers. Excerpt 3 When I look at my peers from high school, those who did not excel in grades like me, became better at studying while those who were really good students are in a mess right now, all of them. Jaewon did not believe that the pressure which came from long hours of studying while his kids were young would necessarily benefit them in the future. His transnational experience alongside his childhood experience allowed him to see how others lived and gave him a new lens to view the world. Therefore, he did not think that his children’s academic successes were important but rather that they pursued their own passions. Where the typical job of a Korean student is to study hard (Shin & Koh, 2005), Jaewon takes this pressure away from his children and focuses more on their interests. Therefore, his children were not pressured into attending hagwons or having private tutors. Jaewon’s stance was important and linked to the transnational experience he had in Europe and growing up in Korea. However, his stance could not have been practiced if his wife did not hold a similar perspective. One reason for this was that Anne was more involved in managing the children’s academic work as she was home more than Jaewon. Jaewon worked six days a week; he left home at 9 AM and arrived home by 10 PM Monday- Friday and returned home on Saturdays by 6 PM. Also, for many Korean mothers, their children’s success reflects their efforts of finding the best hagwons or private tutors for their children which is a source of pride (Shin, et al., 2019). If Anne were Korean, she might have felt 59 pressured to send her children to multiple hagwons and to hire private tutors but having grown up in Canada, Anne brought to her family knowledge from a non-competitive educational system. The new hybrid practices that Jaewon and Anne were able to implement in their home reflected their transnational knowledge and experiences alongside their ethnotheories which were sometimes followed but also rejected based on their transnational knowledge. Anne Anne traveled from Canada to Korea in 1997 to teach English where she has taught her L1 since. Although Anne grew up in Canada and learned some French in school, she did not use French with her husband or children to communicate. Anne learned Korean when she arrived in Korea. She felt that learning Korean was part of the adventure of living in Korea and invested time in learning the language early on. As Anne was the only family who was not residing in her home context, Anne was constantly in a position where she needed to negotiate cultural similarities and differences such as her own ethnotheories, which she questioned being in Korea. After becoming a mother, one of the ethnotheories that Anne confronted was related to sleep. This ethnotheory was challenged from her knowledge of life in Korea and Anne eventually uses co-sleeping as a way to bond with her children and teach them English. Anne described in her second interview that co-sleeping was an issue that she confronted after Rose’s birth. Excerpt 4 Co-sleeping. Of course, that’s a big issue in the West now too, right? There are a lot more people doing it. But when Rose was born, and my mom came over, Jaewon was like, ‘Okay. Well, I’ll be sleeping in this room, and you’ll be in there with your mom and the 60 baby.’ I’m like, What? I don’t think so. So that was pretty funny. And Jaewon was all right with that. He was like, ‘Oh, okay then.’ Coming from Canada where children were typically sleep trained from birth to a culture that has until recently co-slept with children from birth as a normal practice, Anne knew that her mother would not want to sleep with her newborn. Anne being a new mother was figuring out her own parenting methods outside of her home context and needed to decide what practices she was comfortable with based on her own ethnotheories while negotiating those in the local context. Jaewon made assumptions based on Korean ethnotheories about the sleeping practices of mothers and grandmothers, in this case of Anne and her mother both sleeping and caring for the baby, and his practice as the father. Although Anne did not sleep in the room with her mother and the baby, she did end up co-sleeping with the children which she related to bonding and language learning which I will discuss further in the next section. Anne also felt that the parenting styles between Koreans and Canadians were different as well and was something that became balanced in her own home. She stated in her second interview, Excerpt 5 I think Jaewon said this too, talking about parenting styles, you know, Korea's pretty hierarchical, so there's not much discussion between parents and children about…children don't say, "Well, why?" You don't question why you have to do something. You just listen to your parents and do it. That's the stereotype, anyway of Korean parenting style. Right? I mean, on the one hand, it's like that. On the other hand, it's also very free. Right? Children under five, they're running around restaurants and all that stuff. But I guess when they get a little bit older, then, children aren't really supposed 61 to question their parents. I don't think that's true so much now in the younger generation. But anyway. Whereas I discuss everything with the children, you know, and Jaewon does too, to some degree. In Anne’s reflection on parenting styles between Korean’s and Canadian’s she described the traditional hierarchy that exists in Korea where children are not supposed to question their parents, yet she also acknowledges the freedom of young children which is in contrast to Western childrearing. In Canada, young children are expected to sit at a table when eating at a restaurant and are taught many rules of how to behave in public, which is contrary to how Koreans are not very strict with young children in public spaces. Yet, Western children are seen as questioning their parents whereas Korean children are not as they age. Anne acknowledges that these are stereotypes of Korean parenting, meaning she realizes there are degrees to which this is true depending on the family and generation. Additionally, she explained how she discusses things with her children and that Jaewon does to some extent. Meaning that Anne believes that discussion is important in her relationship with her children which is one of the reasons why she stated that she always spoke to the children in English from birth, wanting them to fully understand her and for her to fully understand them. Anne in this passage also views Jaewon as not strictly adhering to traditional Korean hierarchical ideas of childrearing by also discussing issues with the children, though she perceived herself discussing things more with the children than Jaewon. Possibly revealing the hybridity of Jaewon’s transnational knowledge and Korean ethnotheories. Language Learning and Bonding Anne expressed her mothering, through her use of English, as a part of the bonding experience she had with her children. She stated, “I think it would be so sad if I couldn’t express 62 myself to my children because I think there's nothing sadder than not being able to communicate with your own child” (Interview 1). This desire to communicate and bond with her children resulted in many language and parenting practices that Anne implemented in the home from the children’s births such as co-sleeping which she associated with Korean culture and bedtime stories which she associated with Canadian culture. Through the practice of co-sleeping, Anne described reading to Rose and Jack nightly from when they were two months old until they were in third grade. Bedtime reading is a common middle-class activity among White North Americans (Heath, 1982). She thought that this approach to learning English would develop not only their speaking and listening skills but also their reading ability. To her surprise, they never ‘picked up reading naturally’. Rather, when she found that they were not reading, she purchased Hooked on Phonics, an English reading program and used it to support their decoding of English. Although Anne was no longer co-sleeping with her children as they were older, she explained that at bedtime she would still ask them if they wanted her to lie down with them. She explained, “Every single night I'd lie with them until they were about 10, pretty much every night. But, for example, the other night, Rose and I just sat and talked till 2:00 AM.” This talking and bonding time she felt created a close relationship between her and her children and also aided their speaking and listening skills in English. Anne explained that she had a similar relationship with Jack. Although she did not typically lie down with him at night, they enjoyed other forms of bonding. Jack enjoyed mountain biking and outdoor activities and Anne and Jaewon would join him outdoors. Anne explained that they would spend a lot of time talking during these outings: 63 Excerpt 6 [The other day] Jack and I rode our bikes to Han River. So, we spent the whole day together. And he was talking nonstop about this and that. And then we came home, and he said, "Wow, Mommy, you know, I think I was talking a lot, wasn't I?" I was like, "Yeah, nonstop." He says, "Well, I just have so much to tell you." These bonding moments that Anne created with her children were based both on the children’s interests and on the hope to support their English acquisition. This desire to bond with her children based on their interest is important as other studies have found that in families where children and parents to not speak the same language, there can be more tension in the relationship between children and parents (Danjo, 2018; Fillmore, 2000). These hybrid practices Anne engaged in allowed the children and parents to bond through activities the children were interested in while also supporting their language and relationships. Jack shared in his second interview a three-year journal that the kids kept with Anne every night from 2016-2018. The journal had daily prompts that Anne would ask Rose and Jack to orally respond to. The children were not expected to write in the journal, only to draw pictures in the book when prompted. Jack also shared that Anne kept a ‘Funny Book’ about each of them. The ‘Funny Book’ consisted of things that the children did or said that Anne found humorous and thought that they would find humorous one day too. Jack explained in his second interview: Excerpt 7 Like, it's nice because that [three-year] journal is almost full. So, I remember at that time, we didn't like to do it. And Mommy used to always say, "When you get older, if you see this, you won't regret doing this." And at that time, we always said, "Oh, we will regret it. 64 There's not much of a point." But now, if I look at it, it's quite funny and we do read it sometimes. Anne documenting the activities and thoughts of her children was another way of bonding for Anne and the children even though Rose and Jack resisted the activity at first. Anne purchased the three-year journal while on a trip home to Canada with the hope that the children would enjoy doing the activities in the book together with her. Although the children did not appreciate the activities at first, they later found them fun to look back on, as was Anne’s intention. Collectively, all of the activities that Anne pursued with her children were hybrid bonding experiences which were both based on her ethnotheories about childrearing in Canada and those that she acquired while living in Korea while negotiating childrearing with Jaewon. Studying English in the Home Anne expressed frustration with her children’s progress in English. She explained that at school, the English they were taught was too simple, yet at the same time, studying with her became a ‘chore’ for all of them. She perceived Jack’s reading level in English at a 2 nd grade level (He was in 5th grade) and that Rose’s English reading level was at a 4th grade level (Rose was in 7th grade). Anne described many activities that she tried to do with the kids to keep them interested in reading and writing in English, such as purchasing books, workbooks, and other materials she bought in Canada that she thought her kids would like. However, when she tried using this material to study with her children, she found that a routine was unsustainable. Anne explained studying English with her children: Excerpt 8 It's hard to get that balance of forcing them to do it because they need to do it, and then not getting them to hate it and resent it and then not wanna do anything at all. So I don't 65 have that balance. Formal study is something else, which is maybe best left to someone who's a little bit more distant, you know, not family. Although Anne and Jaewon both resisted sending the children to hagwons, Anne struggled with teaching Jack and Rose English formally at home. Anne worried about her relationship with her children when forcing them to study English because she felt a resentment to English would develop which she had avoided through her “mother tongue” approach in their early years. Yet, to get them to higher levels of literacy, she felt that more formal study was necessary. Despite this, Anne refused to send Rose to an English hagwon when Rose had recently asked. In Excerpt 9, Anne explains: Excerpt 9 "Oh, mommy, I'd like to just go to a hagwon. Couldn't I just go to an English hagwon?" She said, "I think I'd learn better there because it's more pressure," And, actually, I bet you she would learn. I told her, "You know, just get the textbooks that your friends are learning--and bring them home, and let's do them at home together." And she said, "No. It just wouldn't be the same." The home environment where Anne focused on bonding and a mother tongue approach to learning English did not transfer to the needs that Rose felt were needed to improve her English, at least those needed for test-taking in Korea. Additionally, Anne admits that Rose would probably learn more going to a hagwon but instead of enrolling her, she tells Rose to bring the material home and to study with her. Anne continues to hold onto her ethnotheories when it comes to schooling for the children even though she is aware of the competitive nature of Korean schooling. 66 Discussion This qualitative case study illustrated the relationship between parental transnational knowledge and experiences, their ethnotheories, and bonding activities for language learning in one intermarried multilingual family residing in Korea. The first research question, how did the parent’s transnational knowledge and ethnotheories influence the language practices in the home, was answered in this article. Based on the findings, the parent’s ethnotheories of how children should be raised and the role of children were found to be taken up by Anne and Jaewon in certain instances in their childrearing and language practices. Interestingly, they both used their transnational experiences to push back on the ethnotheories that they were raised with. Jaewon often pushed back on the competitive education culture in Korea and Anne adapted co-sleeping for bonding with her children even before it was a topic of debate in Canada. However, an interesting conflict which emerged in their parenting philosophy was when Rose approached Anne to attend an English hagwon because she felt it would pressure her into studying harder. Yet, despite Anne wanting the children to improve their English literacy skills, she still resisted sending Rose to a hagwon which is reflective of her ethnotheories. Similar to Fogle (2013), the ethnotheories that Jaewon and Anne held influenced their language practices in the home, yet their transnational knowledge combined with their ethnotheories created hybrid practices. In the Korean context, they made decisions that both reflected their home culture’s ethnotheories for raising children while also questioning and pushing back on some of these ethnotheories. At the same time, the knowledge acquired in transnational contexts allowed them to also push back on local norms as well. with their childrearing and language practices based on their transnational knowledge. Furthermore, being in an intermarried family supported both Anne and Jaewon’s transnational knowledge. If Jaewon had not had transnational living and language learning 67 experiences prior to meeting Anne, he may have had only Korean ethnotheories with which to rely on for childrearing and language practices. Similarly, if Anne had been a Korean mother who never lived abroad, she may not have understood Jaewon’s transnational experiences and chosen to teach their children English by hiring tutors or having them attend hagwons as Korean mothers typically do (e.g., Shin, et al., 2019) especially when Rose asked. Therefore, intermarried families in which both parents have transnational experiences can support each other’s transnational knowledge in unique ways. The second question addressed in this article, what language and parenting practices did the mother establish to teach English, was also answered in this article. Anne established a number of bonding activities that she felt would create a close relationship between her and her children while also supporting their English acquisition. These practices were not only linked to her cultural upbringing as other scholars have suggested (e.g., Tannenbaum, 2012) but also related to her transnational experience in Korea. Anne adapted Korean co-sleeping, Western influenced bedtime stories, and a desire to focus on her children’s interests to spend time with them. These practices supported the children’s language acquisition in ways that supported their speaking and listening skills in English, however, when Anne adapted more scheduled, or routine English learning including study materials, she found that the children resisted formal studying with her. As their relationship was paramount to Anne, she did not force the children to study English with her, but she wanted them to naturally want to do it. Sevinç (2020) and De Houwer (1999) stated that positive language learning experiences are important for language acquisition in the home, and it appeared that Anne instinctively believed this as well, it was promoting a desire to invest more time into studying English that the children were not interested in. As there was no need for Rose or Jack to improve their English as English at school was too easy and they were able to 68 access information that they wanted in Korean, Anne’s efforts to teach English formally failed. Interestingly, even knowing her children did not want to study with her, Anne still did not enroll Rose in an English hagwon even though she thought that Rose might actually improve. Anne may not have wanted to send Rose to an English hagwon because Anne’s approach to English was a mother tongue approach and attending a hagwon which likely focused on grammar and vocabulary building, went against Jaewon and her beliefs of language learning. Implications This study has several implications for intermarried multilingual families. The first implication is that bonding activities between parents and children are important for language acquisition. As Anne chose Korean and Canadian child-rearing practices that she felt bonded her with her children, she was able to support the children’s English speaking and listening. The low-stress environment that evolved from these practices can relieve multilingual Korean- English speaking children from the pressures of the competitive test-taking culture in Korea especially in reference to studying English. However, for the children to do well on the English based exams, it is likely that more formal study is needed. Finding ways that continue to support their relationship while also teaching more challenging literacy skills is needed. In transnational families where family members live overseas, having children write letters to grandparents or cousins could be a way to keep children’s interest in developing their literacy skills while also strengthening their connection with family members. Implications of this study for teachers with students with an L1 English speaking parent in Korea, are that they should not assume that children in this type of family will automatically perform well in all areas of English, especially on test-based exams. Teachers should differentiate their teaching to support these students and provide more challenging activities in 69 the classroom after assessing the child’s English language proficiency in speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Teachers should be aware that intermarried families will have childrearing practices that may reflect or contradict local ethnotheories and acknowledge these differences as positive for the unique family dynamics of their bilingual students. Teachers should also promote bonding activities between parents and children through literacy practices, corresponding with family members abroad, and suggesting parents take part in activities of interest of the children to support language maintenance for bilingual children. Implications for the field of FLP are that the transnational knowledge and experiences of parents in combination with their cultural upbringings need to be examined more thoroughly as transnational parents tend to uptake particular childrearing practices and disregard others. This study suggests that context and personal experience seem to be the reason behind the choices made but an ethnographic or longitudinal study would likely reveal more complex reasons behind these decisions and would likely show changes in patterns over time. Furthermore, examining how intermarried families negotiate their ethnotheories together, alongside their transnational knowledge, should be examined further to understand home language and childrearing practices. 70 REFERENCES 71 REFERENCES Basch, L., Schiller, N. G., & Blanc, C. S. (2020). Nations unbound: Transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments, and deterritorialized nation-states. Routledge. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of research methods in psychology (Vol. 2.) Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004 Buchmann, C., Condron, D.J., & Roscigno, V.J. (2010). Shadow education, American style: Test preparation, the SAT and college enrollment. Social Forces, 89(2), 435-461. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2010.0105 Busch, B. (2010). School language profiles: Valorizing linguistic resources in heteroglossic situations in South Africa. Language and Education, 24(4), 283-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500781003678712 Cho, J. (2017). English language ideologies in Korea: Interpreting past and present. Multilingual Education (Vol. 24). Springer. Choi, C., Lee, J., Yoo, M. S., & Ko, E. (2019). South Korean children's academic achievement and subjective well-being: The mediation of academic stress and the moderation of perceived fairness of parents and teachers. Children and Youth Services Review, 100, 22- 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.02.004 Choi, L. J. (2021). ‘English is always proportional to one’s wealth’: English, English language education, and social reproduction in South Korea. Multilingua, 40(1), 87-106. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2019-0031 Coppens, A.D. Corwin, A.I., & Alcalá, L. (2020). Beyond behavior: Linguistic evidence of cultural variation in parental ethnotheories of children’s prosocial help. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00307 Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. (2009). Invisible and visible language planning: Ideological factors in the FLP of Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. Language Policy, 8(4), 351-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-009-9146-7 72 Danjo, C. (2018). Making sense of family language policy: Japanese-English bilingual children's creative and strategic translingual practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1460302 De Houwer, A. (1999). Environmental factors in early bilingual development: The role of parental beliefs and attitudes. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Bilingualism and migration (pp. 75-96). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807820.75 Dyson, A.H., & Genishi, C. (2005) On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. Teachers College Press. Fillmore, L.W. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory Into Practice, 39(4), 203-210. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3904_3 Fogle, L. W. (2013). Parental ethnotheories and family language policy. Language Policy, 12(1), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-012-9261-8 Gardner, K. (2012). Transnational migration and the study of children: An introduction. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(6), 889-912. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2012.677170 Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (2006). Themes and variations: Parental ethnotheories in western cultures. In K.H. Rubin & O.B. Chung (Eds.), Parenting beliefs, behaviors, and parent- child relations: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 61-79). Psychology Press. Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society, 11(1), 49-76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500009039 Hyun, J., Lee, J., & Lee, H.Y. (2003). A study on the education fever of Korean parents. Korean Educational Development Institute. Jeon, M. (2009). Globalization and native English speakers in English Programme in Korea (EPIK). Language, Culture and Curriculum, 22(3), 231-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310903388933 King, K. A., Fogle, L., & Logan‐Terry, A. (2008). Family language policy. Language and Linguistics compass, 2(5), 907-922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749- 818X.2008.00076.x\ Kim, H.J. (2007). Exploring the effects of family background, school education, and private tutoring on high school students: Achievement in Korea. The Journal of Educational Administration, 25(4), 485-508. Kim, J.S., & Bang, H. (2017). Education fever: Korean parents’ aspirations for their children’s schooling and future career. Pedagogy, Culture, & Society, 25(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1252419 73 Kim, M.S. (2015). The subjective well-being of Korean children and its policy implications. Health and Welfare Policy Forum, 220, 14-26. Kim, T., & Reichmuth, H.L. (2021). Exploring cultural logics in teacher learning: Collaborative autoethnography on transnational teaching and learning. Professional Development in Education, 47(2-3), 257-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1862278 Kim, Y.C., & Jung, J.H. (2019). Shadow education as worldwide curriculum studies. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03982-0_2 Kwon, J. (2019). Mobilizing historical knowledge through transcultural play: A multi-sited ethnographic case study of an immigrant child. Early Child Development and Care, 191(4), 624-639. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2019.1637860 Kwon, J. (2020). The circulation of care in multilingual and transnational children. Literacy Research: Theory, Method and Practice, 69(1), 99-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336920937277 Lam, W. S. E., & Warriner, D. S. (2012). Transnationalism and literacy: Investigating the mobility of people, languages, texts, and practices in contexts of migration. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.016 Lee, J. (2011). Education and family in conflict. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(4), 395-401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315310385462 Lee, M.W., Kim, H., & Han, M.S. (2021) Language ideologies of Korean mothers with preschool-aged children: Comparison, money, and early childhood education. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42(7), 637-649. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1713137 Lee, J., Puig, A., Kim, Y. B., Shin, H., Lee, J. H., & Lee, S. M. (2010). Academic burnout profiles in Korean adolescents. Stress and Health, 26(5), 404- 416. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1312 Lee, M., & Larson, R. (2000). The Korean ‘examination hell’: Long hours of studying, distress, and depression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(2), 249-271. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005160717081 Lee, S. Y., Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2010). An ecological understanding of youth suicide in South Korea. School Psychology International, 31(5), 531-546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034310382724 Lee, S. (2018). Relationship between education fever, the education policy, and shadow education in Korea. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 15(2). 74 Lee, S., & Shouse, R.C. (2011). The impact of prestige orientation on shadow education in South Korea. Sociology of Education, 84(3), 212-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711411278 Levitt, P. (2001). The transnational villagers. University of California Press. Levitt, P. & Jaworsky, B.N. (2007). Transnational migration studies: Past developments and future trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 129-156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131816 Park, S.J., & Abelmann, N. (2004). Class and cosmopolitan striving: Mothers’ management of English education in South Korea. Anthropological Quarterly, 44(4), 645-672. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150852 Park, J.S.Y. (2009). The local construction of a global language: Ideologies of English in South Korea. Mourton de Gruyter. Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. E., & Landolt, P. (1999). The study of transnationalism: Pitfalls and promise of an emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2), 217-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/014198799329468 Ra, J.J. (2019). Exploring the spread of English language learning in South Korea and reflections of the diversifying sociolinguistics context for future English language teaching practices. Asian Englishes, 21(3), 305-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2019.1581713 Sevinç, Y. (2020). Language anxiety as a negative emotion in home language maintenance and development. In A. Schalley and S. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistic series: Social and affective factors in home language maintenance and development (pp. 84– 107). De Gruyter Mouton. Shin, K., Jahng, K.E., & Kim, D. (2019). Stories of South Korean mothers’ education fever for their children’s education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39(3), 338-356. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2019.1607720 Shin, S. & Koh, M. (2005). Korean education in cultural context. Essays in Education, 14, 1-10. https://openriver.winona.edu/eie/vol14/iss1/10 Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge University Press. Stake, R.E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denizen & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research. (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Sage Publications. Tannenbaum, M. (2012). Family Language Policy as a form of coping and defense mechanism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 57-66. 75 Yang, S.A. (2019). A day in the life of a Korean student: South Korean children shuffle through hours of private education, even on the weekends, from elementary to high school. Hankyoreh. From https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/PRINT/911320.html 76 ARTICLE 3 Language and Cultural Identities in Multilingual Families Introduction According to the United Nations International Migration Report (2020), over the two decades prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, transnational migration grew exponentially. In 2020, 281 million people were living outside of their country of origin, this was an increase from 173 million in 2000 and 221 million in 2010. During this same period, South Korea (hereafter ‘Korea’) recruited L1 English speakers from majority English speaking countries around the globe. This was done to improve the English-speaking proficiency of Koreans to participate in the global market (Park, 2009). This transnational movement of majority White western English speakers, as the Korean ELT market conflates the English language with race (Jenks, 2019), has seen an increase in intermarried families among Korean nationals and White English speakers. These marriages in Korea fall under the purview of Damunhwa gajeong meaning ‘multicultural families’ which refers to families with ‘one or both spouses…. of different ethnic or cultural backgrounds from mono-cultural Koreans’ (Kang, 2010, p. 293). These families are not Korean families, but a type of family that exists in Korea (Sohn & Kang, 2021). Often, they are not considered Korean families due to the “pure blood” ideologies in Korea that refer to the Korean people descending from one pure racial/ethnic lineage (Lee, 2008; Lim, 2010). A 2014 poll jointly administered by the Korean Ministry of Gender Equality and Family and the Asian Institute, found that almost ninety percent of South Koreans stressed the importance of Korean blood lineage while approximately thirty percent of Koreans regarded mixed-race families a “threat to social cohesion” (Moon, 2015). The Korean government has responded to the discrimination that damunhwa families face by implementing programs such as 77 language and cultural classes for foreign brides to help them assimilate into Korean culture. However, these laws do not address societal level racial ideologies which still persist, nor do they view the language and culture of the wife as having value to their family or to Korean society rather they emphasize the assimilation of the women into traditional roles (Han & Price, 2015; Park, 2019). This is in contrast to the language and cultural contributions which these wives can and have contributed to Korean society and culture (Sohn & Kang, 2021). Despite the continued increase of children from intermarried families in Korean schools and calls for multicultural education, Korean schools continue to espouse a rhetoric of the Korean people being one pure race (Kim, 2020). Multiracial children from intermarried families tend to fall under the purview of either being Amerasians or Koasians. Ameriasians are typically defined as children born from U.S. service men. Since the Korean war, the U.S. has had a strong presence in Korea. After the Korean War, a number of children were born between Korean women and U.S. soldiers. These servicemen did not stay in Korea to raise their children, nor did they take them to the U.S. Koasians on the other hand, come from unions between Korean men and marriage migrants from Southeast Asia (Yoo, 2017). Ameriasians have reported being discriminated against, have a high elementary school dropout rate, and high levels of suicide because of discrimination based on their blood line and lack of familial cohesion (Yoo, 2017). Koasians tend to have their language and literacy abilities criticized in schools and are often victims of bullying. Koasians also have a high dropout rate by middle school (Yoo, 2017). Multiracial children from families where parents are English teachers or professionals to Korean nationals with fathers and mothers present in Korea are a more recent phenomenon. Children from these unions do not fit neatly into the Amerasian or Koasian categories, however, they live among these discourses. 78 Studies that have looked at damunhwa families typically examine the experiences of marriage migrant brides from developing nations to Korean men who are often low-income earners. These studies examine the racial/ethnic/linguistic discrimination the wives and their children face (e.g., Kim, 2011; Lew & Choi, 2020; Park 2017a). Looking at low income damunhwa families is important as they reveal the intersection of Korean pure blood ideologies with social class. Several studies have indicated a preference or acceptance of Korean-White children and their bilingualism compared to those of children who come from other racial and cultural backgrounds (e.g., Ahn, 2018; Lew & Choi, 2020). Yet pure-blood ideologies and ideologies surrounding the Korean language affect the language and cultural identities of Korean-White multiracial Korean children as these ideologies position exogenous spouses and their children as non-Koreans despite being Korean citizens (the children) and potential citizens (exogenous spouses) (Park, 2017). Many Koreans regard the Korean language as symbolic of the country and culture and thus is the embodiment of a Korean identity (Kang & Kim, 2012; Lee, 2002; Simpson, 2007; You, 2005). Very little is known about the identities of family members in multiracial Korean-White families in Korea. As larger Korean discourses position the multiracial children as outsiders, as well as the intermarried spouse, while English’s status in Korea complicates the family’s position. Reichmuth (2020) examined the identity of White intermarried North American women to Korean men and found that identity struggles persisted due to the outsider positionality that the women faced due to larger Korean ideologies surrounding race and language. This study expands on the findings of Reichmuth (2020) by looking at how four family members of an intermarried multiracial Korean family self-identify and are positioned by the greater society. Drawing from theories of figured worlds (Holland, Lachicotte, Sinner, & Cain, 1998), this 79 qualitative case study aims to expand and refine how multiracial family members engage in practiced and positioned identities in Korea. In particular, I asked: 1) How do multiracial family members identify with their languages and cultures? 2) How, if at all, do multiracial family members push back on Korean pure-blood ideologies? Figured Worlds In this paper, I use Holland et al.’s (1998) theory of figured worlds as a theoretical lens for examining one multiracial Korean/Canadian family members’ identities and agency in larger cultural worlds. A figured world is defined as “a socially and culturally constructed realm of interpretation in which particular characters and actors are recognized, significance is assigned to certain acts, and particular outcomes are valued over others” (Holland et al., p. 52). This means that figured worlds are simultaneously molded by and shaped alongside discourses, performances, activities, and artifacts (Urrieta, 2007). Members of a figured world have their own ways of interacting and unique perspectives on that figured world. This makes examining the figured worlds of all members of a multiracial family a more holistic examination of how they each perceive their figured worlds. Intermarried multiracial families can also create their own figured worlds which can conflict with the master figured world in the local context as they forge together two or more cultures in a household and negotiate these figured worlds together. Furthermore, the family members are in a unique position to push back on these master narratives by challenging them in various ways. Gee (2014) extends Holland et al.’s (1998) work on figured worlds by addressing the conflict that exists between and within figured worlds. He explained that people can have “allegiance to competing and conflicting figured worlds” (p. 107). Gee described the master figured worlds as figured worlds that shape and organize significant parts of people’s life’s, 80 including their experiences. For example, the Korean master ideology of pure-blood which stems from unifying the Korean people during Japanese occupation allows some Koreans to experience belonginess while multiracial Koreans experience an Othering. This master narrative also conflicts with the increase of multiracial/multiethnic children in Korean schools today (Lew & Choi, 2021). Identity and Agency Holland et al. (1998) attempt to understand “identity in practice” (p. 271) meaning that the activities developed by the figured worlds form and shape a person’s identity. These practiced identities appear in the social and cultural work of speaking, thinking, gesturing, and within cultural exchange. They place us in social fields “in degrees of relation to—affiliation with, opposition to, and distance from— identifiable others (p. 271). Holland et al. further defined identities as positional/relational which relate to someone’s everyday “relations of power, deference and entitlement, social affiliation and distance” (p. 127). These positional identities are identities which are assigned by others which become normalized, meaning that they are no longer viewed by individuals in the society as a figured world, but rather as a reality. However, the framework of figured worlds involves the creation of identities through the active participation in figured worlds. Therefore, individuals can gain “new understandings of themselves and their lives” (Urrieta, 2007, p. 126) through this lens. In this article language portraits, the conversation during the sharing of language portraits, journals, and interview data are used to examine one multiracial/multilingual Korean family to understand how family members practiced identities and were positioned within Korean society. 81 Methodology The current paper presents parts of findings from a larger case study (Yin, 2018) conducted with one multiracial Korean/Canadian family residing in a suburb of Seoul, Korea. Data were collected between May and August of 2020 via Zoom, Seesaw (a teaching app that allowed participants to upload audio recordings, images, and write in their journals) as well as Google Drive where participants uploaded their audio and video recordings of familial interactions. Data was collected using online tools as the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and university travel restrictions were in place. Taking an ontological world view that there is no definitive identity and individual identities are constantly being negotiated and repositioned by individuals and by others in every context (Holland, et al., 1998), a case study approach was implemented as it allows for a richer understanding of “the messy complexity of human experience” (Dyson & Genishi, 2005, p.3). Researcher Positionality My interest in this topic stems from being a member of a multiracial Korean/American family. I met my husband, a Korean national, in South Korea in 2005 while I was there teaching English as a foreign language. Before marrying, my husband and I were both concerned about the pure-blood ideologies in Korea. My husband worried about his family’s acceptance of me as a daughter-in-law, a White American woman, and whether they would accept our future children. We knew going into our marriage that our children would be considered “mixed,” or Honhyeol which has negative connotations of abnormality and hybridity (Lee, 2017) in contrast to a “pure” Korean. Yet, we also saw hope in government efforts and TV programming that highlighted more biracial Koreans (Ahn, 2018). 82 I acknowledge that multiracial Korean-White children are more privileged than children who have parents who are non-white or come from lower-income countries, yet the children of these unions are still positioned as non-Korean which can affect their sense of belonginess in Korean society, their linguistic choices, and their relationship with their family members. As qualitative researchers are an “integral part of the process and final product of a research study, separation from this is neither possible nor desirable” (Galdas, 2017, p. 2). This means that a qualitative researcher should not be separated from the work they perform yet they are responsible for reducing bias. As a member of a Korean-White family, having lived in Korea for 15 years, and having a family structure similar to the participating family has helped me to understand their experiences and also gained me access to their family. To reduce bias in this study, I drew upon the scholarship of mainly Korean scholars that have documented similar phenomenon of multiracial/ethnic Korean families as well as collected multiple sources of data from participants (interview data, journal entries, language portraits, audio/video recordings of family activities together) and analyzed data iteratively. Participants The participants were chosen through snowball sampling (Noy, 2008). I contacted three families that I knew in Korea that consisted of one parent who was a White North American married to a Korean national as I wanted to learn about the experiences of this family type. I also asked these families to recommend other multilingual/multiracial Korean/English speaking families as well. Two of the three families I contacted expressed interest in my study, however, I decided to focus on the focal family as the children were older than the child in the other family. I met Anne in Seoul, Korea in 2003 and met her occasionally before this study, the last time being 2011. I met Jaewon, twice with Anne in 2005, I met Rose once when she was 2 years old. I 83 had never had the opportunity to meet Jack prior to data collection. Although I knew the family, the closeness and distance I had with the family members offered an ability to ask some harder questions, but also remain objective as I knew all of them to varying degrees. At the time of the study, the family was living in a suburb of Seoul. Anne was 51 years old and teaching English at a university in Seoul, Jaewon was 54 years old and running his own business, Rose was 13 years old and just starting middle school (7th grade), and Jack was 11 years old and starting 5th grade. Table 7 Participant’s Basic Background Information Individual Age Birth Familial Work/ Time Languages Country Role Grade Abroad Jaewon 54 Korea Father Owns Lived in Korean, private Germany German, business & France French, from age English 20-35 Anne 51 Canada Mother English as Lived in English, a Foreign Korea Korean, Language from French (EFL) 1997- instructor present Rose 13 Korea Daughter 7th grade Canada, Korean, 11yearly English visits; 4-5 weeks Jack 11 Korea Son 5th grade Canada, 9 Korean, yearly English visits; 4-5 weeks Data Collection This paper is part of a larger dissertation that examined one intermarried Korean/Canadian family residing in Korea which explored their language and literacy practices. Family members each participated in two semi-structured interviews and answered journal prompts except for Jaewon who participated in one interview and the language portrait activity. All data were 84 collected online, and interviews were conducted via Zoom as COVID-19 protocols kept the researcher from traveling to Korea. Language portraits (Busch, 2012) were chosen as a way to understand both the language repertoires of the family members in this study and also their identities. Language portraits are silhouettes of a body that participants are asked to color and fill in to represent their languages and emotions tied to the languages. Participants were instructed to think about their thoughts/feelings and languages (Korean/English/Other languages/family languages/honorifics/dialects) and use colors or patterns to represent these languages and thoughts/feelings. Family members designed their silhouette’s separately and then came together to share their language portraits. The use of language portraits pushes on traditional notions of research where the social world was believed to only be understood through language (Gauntlett & Holzwrath, 2006). Since Busch’s (2012) initial study, language portraits have been used in a number of studies looking at adult and child multilingual identities and linguistic repertoires inside and outside of school contexts. Botsis and Bradbury (2018) used language portraits to understand South African university students’ language, identity, and subjectivity. Prasard (2014) used language portraits to open dialogue and understand how transnational students and youth made sense of their own language and transnational experiences. Wilson (2020) used language portraits to understand the language experiences of French-English transnational children in Britain. Purkarthofer (2019) used language portraits to look at future or imagined family language policies among multilingual couples who did not have children or were new parents. Language portraits are a “mode of meaning-making in [their] own right, which follows another logic than the verbal mode” (Busch 2012, p.12). Therefore, just as other scholars have advocated, the language portraits are explained by the creator to assure validity (Busch, 2010; 85 Freeman & Mathison, 2009; Gauntlett & Holzwrath, 2006; Hayik, 2012; Riessman, 2008). In line with this, each of the language portraits below are followed by an explanation in the participants’ own words. Because the portraits were shared between family members, naturally there were questions and comments made during and between their explanations. As this paper is not looking at the family’s specific discourse, I attempted to capture each of their explanations in paragraph form for consistency. This was necessary because the parents interrupted the children’s explanations to ask questions or make comments frequently. This was in contrast to the children who did not ask questions or comment as often on their parents’ language portraits. Therefore, the parents’ explanations were much longer and less interrupted than the children’s explanations. As the study’s participants consisted of multilingual children, I sought to make the research activities child-centered by giving them opportunities to use multimodal and multilingual responses in their participation. They were given the choice to respond to the journal prompts orally, through writing, or images. They were also asked to upload photo images of important objects to them. Rose responded to her journals by writing in Korean and Jack chose to record his voice in English while both children chose to participate in their interviews using English. As adult participants were also multilingual, they made personal language choices for participation as well. Jaewon’s interview consisted of Korean and English throughout switching between the languages as he desired. Anne chose to mainly respond to journal prompts and interview questions through English but used Korean as well. All Korean data were transcribed and translated into English. The translations were done by the researcher and checked for consistency and accuracy by two Korean/English speaking bilinguals. All data sources were analyzed using MAXQDA, a coding software program which allows for qualitative data analysis. 86 Data Analysis Thematic Analysis (TA) was used as the main data analysis method in this study which consisted of two iterations of analysis. First, TA was used to look at participant practiced and positioned identities (Holland, et al., 1998) in journal, language portrait, language portrait discussion, and interview data. Second, the journal, language portraits, language portrait discussion, and interview data were analyzed using Gee’s (2014) identities building tool. The identities forming tool invites the researcher to examine what identities the participant is performing, how the participant identifies themselves, and treats others’ identities, including how they position themselves and others. Triangulation and the identification of themes was achieved through the cross analysis of the parent’s and children’s data. Table 8 Codes and Definitions used for Data Analysis Code Definition Practiced Identities Drawing on Holland et al.’s (1998) and Gee’s (2014) identity building tool, I coded when participant identities appeared in their speaking, (shared) thinking, gesturing, and exchange. Positioned Identities Drawing on Holland et al.’s definition of positional identities. I coded when identities appeared in the participants’ data which were assigned by others. Results Two major themes emerged through my analytic process: a) family member’s diverse practiced identities and b) resisting positioned identities. In this section, I detail these themes through participant language portraits, interview data, journal entries, and from the language 87 portrait discussion. The language portraits that follow are shared in the order that they were shared by family members. Diverse Practiced Identities Jaewon Jaewon was the first family member to share his language portrait and he spoke for almost 10 minutes, the longest of the family members to share. The entirety of his language portrait is not shared here but rather the main part of this explanation. More of his language portrait is shared in the first chapter of the dissertation where I explore the family member’s language ideologies. Figure 4 Jaewon’s Language Portrait Okay. It is impossible da.이것은 삶에 대해서. What is life? The most important thing is head, Kopf, this is in German, and heart, Herz in German, 그리고 Kopf 와 Herz, 즉, 머리랑 마음, 이것이 왔다갔다 하면서 생기는 것이 emotion, 불어로 émotion 그 다음에 이 emotion 때문에 모든 것이 움직이지. 행동, 생각, 모든 것들. 걷는 것, 88 자는 것, 이것이 삶이야. La vie, it’s French, 삶. 그래서 이 삶은 이 두개가 계속 왔다갔다 하기 때문에 라틴어로 ‘humanum erae est,’ 이런 말이 있는데, 뭐냐, 인간은 착각하는 존재이다. 왜냐하면 이게 왔다 갔다, 왔다 갔다 하면서 항상 정확하지 않거든? 그러기 때문에 항상 착각하는 거야. 그러다 보니까 좋은 일, 나쁜 일, 이상한 일, 다 벌어지지. 그래서 religion, 종교도 생기고 그래서. 천국, 지옥이라고 그러고. 천국, 지옥 없어. 그 다음에 culture, 문화도 생기고. 사회도 생기고. Society 도 생기고. 또 뭐 여러가지 많은 것들이 생기고. 이것이 전부 다 life 인데, 이 life 는 머리하고 마음에서 왔다갔다 하면서 생기는 거야. 생각하는 것이 내 마음을 지배하고, 내 마음이 갑자기 “어!” 하고 다가오는 것이 머리로 가는 거야. 그 다음에 머리에서 또 어떤 걸 갖다가 하라고 명령을 해. 이렇게 해라. 이렇게 하라고 얘기하고. 그리고 나서 “시우 가서 아빠 위해서 콜라 사와.” 이렇게 해서 뭐가 생기냐면 어떤 reaction 이 생기지. 이게 Kopf 와 Herz, 머리와 마음. 심장이야. 끝. Translation: Okay. This is about life. What is life? The most important thing is head, Kopf in German, and heart, Herz in German. And Kopf and Herz. When you go back and forth between head and heart, emotion occurs, and émotion in French. Then everything moves because of this emotion such as actions, thoughts, walking, and sleeping. This is life. La vie in French. So, because these two continue to move back and forth in this life, there is a Latin phrase ‘humanum erae est,’ which means that humans are animals of illusion [or misunderstanding]. Because it isn’t always accurate. That's why humans often misunderstand. As a result, everything can happen like good, bad, and strange things. Religion occurs as well such as heaven and hell. (Actually, there is no such thing.) And then culture and society are made. There are many things that happen. We call all of them 89 life, and this life occurs when you go back and forth between your heart and mind. Thoughts dominate our hearts, and our feelings and recognition reaches out to our heads. Then, it orders me to do something from my head. For example, I told Siwoo to do this. Then [ I say], " Siwoo, go buy me a Coke." And naturally, some kind of action would happen. This is Kopf and Herz which are head and heart. The end. Jaewon drew a red heart in the center of his body and placed lines around the heart that draws the observers’ eyes to it. He added a central line with two arrows going back and forth between the heart and head. He drew lighter red lines that stem from the heart and go down the arms and from the heart to the feet almost like veins or blood flowing through the body. Before the discussion began with his family, Jaewon wrote Kopf and Herz (‘head’ and ‘heart’ in German) to the right of the silhouette with arrows that suggest the two are connected, and then an arrow stemming from them to the word émotion (‘emotions’ in French) followed by another arrow which connects to La vie et (‘life’ in French) to the right of his portrait. When explaining his language portrait to his family, Jaewon began by connecting the idea of head and heart in a more philosophical sense. He stated that he believed life occurs because of the connection between the heart and mind and that this also causes inaccuracies and misunderstandings of humans when communicating with others. He emphasized that languages themselves are not important but rather the desire to communicate. In his interview, Jaewon also insisted that, “what language is spoken [in the home] is not important, it is the decisions that are made that are more important.” This quote suggests that Jaewon viewed language as a vehicle to communication, one in which what is achieved through communication is more important than how it is achieved. Jaewon’s language portrait also reflected his transnational experiences of living in Germany and 90 France over a 15 year period and having learned English in Korean primary, middle, and high school as he used all of his languages on the portrait and in his discussion. Jaewon did not participate in answering the journal prompts, however Anne shared during her second interview that when she asked Jaewon the journal prompt, “Why I am proud to be Korean” he responded: “No. How would I be proud?" Anne further shared, “I hear from Jaewon all the time... Jaewon doesn't like to be Korean. He doesn't like Korean society. He doesn't like Korean education.” Jaewon’s language portrait does not reflect any national identity or any specific language but goes beyond this, connecting human emotions and desires as linked to communication suggesting that he does not equate languages with a nationality which contrasts with how many Koreans have been found to view the Korean language as an embodiment of a Korean identity (Simpson, 2007). In Jaewon’s interview he shared his views on education, “While parents push their children for their future, in my personal opinion, it’s one’s own share to do well at school or not.” Therefore, Jaewon had a hands-off approach with his children’s education. He did not push them to attend hagwons or academic institutes which are very common for Korean children to attend (Kim & Reichmuth, 2021). A total of $16.8 billion dollars was spent by Korean families on their elementary to high school aged children in 2018 on hagwons and private tutoring (Yang, 2019). Jaewon described in his interview, “I want my children to grow up very independent and strong. We are not protective.” This way of raising children contrasts with traditional Confucius- style child rearing where family and group responsibilities are more important than the self. Independence is typically seen as an American or western value, in contrast to a Korean value (De Mente, 2018) but Jaewon values independence and wants this for his children. This suggests 91 that Jaewon had a practiced identity that is in conflict with a Korean identity as seen in his views on language and education for his children. Rose Rose, the oldest child in the family, was the second family member to share her language portrait. Figure 5 Rose’s Language Portrait So usually what I think is this, in Korean [pointing to her face/the Korean flag]. And what I kinda want to wear or something and what I want to look like is Canadian. Well, kinda the fashion in Canada. And this is my skin color, I think. [The color of her arms]. Um 그리고 이게 중간이 (And in the middle) 여기 위에 것까지 다 좀 섞이는 부분이고 (This is the mixed part that comes from the top). Then here is Korean and English. I don’t actually know why I drew this part but this is Korean and English [the purple parts]. And this is Korean and English too [points to her feet] and in the middle the yellow part, it’s kinda energy and you know, just my feelings and energy. 92 Rose symbolized her face as a Korean flag as she explained her thoughts were in Korean. This usage of a national flag to represent language is similar to other language portrait studies where children associated a nation’s flag with language, (e.g., Dressler, 2014). Rose also drew a smiley face over the Korean flag which implies happiness with being Korean. When it came to symbolizing English, Rose did not draw the Canadian flag to represent English but rather a striped, red, pink, and green t-shirt and explained, that she wanted to dress more Canadian. Rose’s journal entry can further explain her rationale for drawing a shirt in place of English as opposed to a flag, she explained in more detail about what she liked about Canada, ‘Canada is more like an open place. Like, if you wear, hot Ts, kind of short Ts, no one really cares.’ Therefore, the English language is in her heart or chest area where many portrait studies of multilinguals have found important languages placed (Soares, et al., 2021), but Rose used fashion to symbolize English and a sense of freedom of the body which she perceived as being more liberal in Canada than in Korea. The swirl in Rose’s stomach is where she says is “the mixed part” referring to her two languages. She separated English and Korean at the top of her body, but the two languages meet and swirl at her stomach, and then are combined in the lower half of her body by the color purple. This purple is further separated by yellow or her energy/emotions/feelings. Rose views her languages as together but separated and moved through energy and feelings. In her journal, Rose noted the advantages of being bilingual, were her opportunities to speak a global language and tell others about Korean history and Korean pop culture which she explained she is proud of. Rose also felt that living in Korea, “you can feel both Korean culture and Canadian culture.” Because of her transnational experiences and knowledge of Canada and Korea, she is able to recognize the similarities between the two countries. When describing her 93 pride in being Canadian she wrote that, ‘Canadians are less conscious of appearance, Canadians are kinder, and Canada has a lot of grass and is pretty clean.’ She also saw her advantage of going to Canada as a Korean speaker because she perceived that Canadians did not speak Korean, giving her a secret language while she is there. Although she had good experiences in Canada which she shared, such as day camp, she seemed to view Canada as different and ‘other’ when she talked about Canada, which appeared to be in opposition to Korea. In Canada, she also perceived herself as Korean, “there I feel more Korean because no one else there is Korean.” In contrast to Jaewon, Rose appeared to identify more as Korean and connected with Korea than being Canadian during the language portrait activity. Also, unlike Jaewon who saw languages as a mode of communication and not linked to identity, Rose seemed to view the Korean and Canadian cultures as distinct and in contrast to each other. Taken together, Rose’s language portrait, and journal and interview responses suggest that Rose has a practiced Korean identity. Jack Jack was the third family member to share his language portrait. He explained his portrait below: 94 Figure 6 Jack’s Language Portrait This is the color and what I think of the language. So the orange is English, blue is Korean and black is with friends, banmal (반말). Yeah. Purple is chondaemal (존댓말) speaking to adults. It is basically how much I have of the percent of the language. And English is here. (Points to his heart area.) Since I was born I use English sort of so that should be in my heart. So more of my actions are in Korean. Chondaemal is in my feet because it’s not important. Jack broke down his language repertoires into percentages. In the Korean language, there are different levels of formality when speaking to someone the same age or older. To speak to someone the same age or younger, Koreans use banmal (반말), an informal register. When speaking to someone older as a sign of respect, Koreans use chondaemal (존댓말). Young children are not expected to use chondaemal, but as they begin attending school, they begin to learn to use this form when addressing adults and then are expected to use it. In breaking down the percentages of his languages and their repertoires, Jack showcases his unbounded and fluid repertoires as well as his multiple linguistic knowledge of his languages. In highlighting his 95 repertoires, Jack interestingly breaks down his repertoires by using the Korean language, even when he writes that English is 15% of his language repertoire. This shows that Jack identifies more with the Korean language than with English. Furthermore, Jack writes that banmal is 20% of his linguistic repertoire whereas chondaemal is only 5%. Jack’s relationships with his peers seem to be more important to him than his relationships with adults. Jack’s language portrait reveals a practiced Korean identity which was further supported through his journal entries and interviews. When Jack responded to a journal prompt about his pride in being Canadian he shared: “I’m not really proud to be Canadian because I don’t know the history or anything about it and I don’t live in Canada so I can’t really say anything about it that I’m proud of.” Jack felt disconnected from his Canadian heritage, even though he spent 4-5 weeks in Canada almost every summer before the pandemic. Also, other than the family celebrating Christmas differently than his peers and celebrating Canada Day with Anne, Jack expressed that the Korean holidays were more important in their family. He explained that because their dad was Korean and their grandfather was still alive, that they celebrated Chuseok (Harvest Festival) and Seollal (Lunar New Year) and traditional familial rites ceremonies. In contrast to the lack of connection that Jack felt toward Canada, when asked about his pride in being Korean he shared in his journal: Korea I do know the history, it is the longest country that has been divided 70 years, if you see the history it’s quite amazing because the government doesn’t do everything for the country, the people rose up against Japanese occupation and sacrificed their lives for the nation. Jack feels pride in what he knows about Korean culture and the patriotic spirit of the people. In his explanation of what the Korean people did for their liberation, Jack’s words are 96 passionate and full of zeal. Jack’s connection and pride to this history is linked to the Korean educational curriculum which highlights patriotism and a sense of strong national identity in schools (Kim, 2004). Jack knowing the history of the Korean people alongside the family’s focus on Korean holidays as opposed to Canadian holidays, reinforced Jack’s practiced Korean identity. Anne Anne was the last family member to describe her language portrait which she explained below: Figure 7 Anne’s Language Portrait Mines all my favorite colors: purple and green. So here is my heart, which is purple, purple is English. So my heart is English but a small part of my heart is green you can see. And then all around my heart is green too. Because, like Jack said, when you’re born that’s the language you have there. Korean is around my heart because you know, you guys are all around my heart and you guys are Korean. And purple goes to my mouth 97 because what is in my heart is very easy to say in English. This is purple [the line between her heart and mouth] but you can see the green line is kinda broken because if I try to express my true heart in Korean, it doesn’t always come out so easily. Because we live in Korea, right? And I’m not fluent in Korean, so it’s a bit of pressure and stressful sometimes trying to understand what’s going on. Regardless of how long I study, it’s still not my native language, never will be. And then in my head, both of them [languages] are going around but mostly English of course. And then the green circles are kinda like clouds. Like this was when I’m having stress and I don’t quite understand what’s happening but the other green circles are just when I’m like, okay, there’s Korean out there and I have no problem in most situations you know. Going to the doctor, the supermarket, that kind of thing is no problem. So those are just kinda floating and the purple stars, represent English and they’re stars because it’s like we’re in Korea now, but I was born in Canada and I guess the stars represent space, going from Korea to Canada and that kinda thing. And also stars are nice and bright, because English is obviously more comfortable for me and then down here we have my hands which are about half Korean and half English, because there are many things I have to do here in Korea but these green circles [outside her hands] are Korean which is just beyond my grasp. I can never quite catch everything that’s happening in Korean so… But then my feet are green. I live in Korea, so my normal moving space is in Korean. Anne’s language portrait clearly separated the Korean and English languages in her body though they were often drawn beside each other which suggests that she viewed the languages as separate. Anne explained that this was done because she was a learner of the Korean language, and it was a language that she learned as an adult. This separating approach to the languages is 98 more indicative of a monolingual ideology where languages are seen as distinct and not interacting, in contrast to a heteroglossic ideology of language which highlights the fluidity of languages. Yet, at the same time, Anne acknowledged that both languages were always in her head and present throughout and around her body. Anne described the connection between her heart and mouth as a connection between her emotions that were easily spoken in English and limited in Korean. Anne also appeared to have a deficit view of her own Korean language practice as does not envision herself becoming native speaker like in Korean. Her practiced identity in her language portrait and with her family were of a non-Korean and as a Korean language learner and this identity was likely based on how she was positioned in Korean society. Anne explained in her second interview that she was and would likely never be accepted as a Korean in Korea, however she was content with this positionality. She felt that Korean women experienced discrimination in the workplace and that there was a clear glass ceiling for women. She also felt that Korean women were judged harshly by their physical appearance but because she was not Korean, she could live outside of these experiences and expectations. Anne also interpreted the differences between Korean and Canadian culture in a positive light which reinforced her practiced foreigner identity. In her second interview, Anne explained about the experience of living in Korea: It just gives me a chance to always question myself, which is really cool. Like about all kinds of things. Like why do they do this? Or why do I react that way to that thing they have done? Or you know, what does that say about me? Or what can I learn about this situation? What can I learn about the culture through that situation? Or anything else that makes me question my identity. I feel more Canadian while I like in Korea than I would 99 when I was in Canada, just because I’m much more aware of being different and being Canadian here. Anne’s performed identity as ‘foreigner’ or Canadian helps her to think in ways that she believed she would not have thought if she were living in Canada. This feeling of being labelled by her nationality she explained, made her also question stereotypes of what it means to be Canadian but also stereotypes of what it means to be Korean and what is Korean culture and to what extent do cultural differences exist. Resisting Positioned Identities Positional identities of the family members within the larger society and by family members were revealed in journal responses, interviews, and during the language portrait discussion. For one of Anne’s journal entries, I asked her to share the family’s experience of being a multicultural family in Korea and whether or not they experienced any form of discrimination individually or as a family. Anne shared that being a multiracial Korean-White family that they were privileged compared to other multicultural families in Korea that consisted of family members from Southeast Asia, but she did share experiences that Rose and Jack shared with her. The following excerpt is taken directly from Anne’s third journal entry: Rose told me that sometimes she can hear people in public places telling their friends, ‘There’s a foreigner,’ when she passes by and that makes her uncomfortable. Or sometimes people might ask her directly, ‘Are you a foreigner?’ and she said she used to just say ‘No!’ abruptly but these days she says she has decided to be more kind to them when she answers because she thinks they just don’t know and are curious, so she tells them she is half Korean. If they ask if she speaks Korean well, she will say ‘yes’ but if they ask more questions, (Like try to test her, “What does this word mean?’ Then she will 100 answer more abruptly or not at all.) She says she can see that people are surprised when they find out that she can speak Korean. She said she was very surprised last month because for the first time ever at her new middle school someone asked her not, ‘Are you a foreigner?’ but ‘Are you half-Korean?’ which made her feel really good. The experiences that Anne shared show an evolving attitude from both Rose and Korean society. Rose initially pushes back on pure-blood ideologies by speaking abruptly to Koreans who try and position her as other. However, over time, she has taken on a new perspective, and a new way of pushing back on these ideologies through education. Rose’s experience also underscores the idea that only Koreans are legitimate speakers of Korean (Kang & Kim, 2012) which is why her language is being tested. Rose also noted the changing perception of Koreans in general when asked if she was half-Korean, meaning that some Koreans are beginning to both except and acknowledge that she can be both a Korean speaker and Korean though she may have physical attributes that are different from a typical Korean. Anne also shared Jack’s experiences of being othered in Korea. The following excerpt is taken directly from Anne’s journal: Jack has told me that sometimes people might point and tell their friends, ‘There’s an American” and Jack doesn’t like that because he’s Canadian, not American’ and also because it just makes him uncomfortable to be pointed at like that. He said in those situations he makes a point of talking in Korean so that people can hear that he’s Korean. He says he’s never felt prejudice from anyone or has experienced anything bad, he just feels uncomfortable when people ask if he’s a foreigner. Jack expressed to Anne a feeling of discomfort for being positioned both as an American and non-Korean. Koreans typically label anyone who is phenotypically White as American 101 because of the large U.S. military presence on the peninsula. Therefore, they are labeling Jack as American as they think he does not physically match the appearance of a Korean. The fact that Korean children are pointing at him also shows that they are positioning people as either one of them (Korean) or not based on appearance. Children learn the cultural and social values of a society and in this case, they are explicitly revealing the pure-blood ideologies that position anyone who is not fully Korean as other. Jack pushed back on this positioning in the only way that he thought he could, which was by showing that he is a legitimate Korean by speaking Korean loud enough for them to hear. Anne also shared an experience that they had once when Rose was young. Though she said it was an atypical experience and that they are now friendly with the woman involved, the incident points to how the family and family members can be positioned as ‘other’ in Korean society. Koreans typically live in large apartment complexes that are 18 stories or more. It is typical to hear neighbors and there are many complaints about noise, especially of families that have small children. On this day, a neighbor in the apartment below them went to their door to complain about the noise that the kids were making. Anne shared in her journal: They [the children] weren’t thumping around, just walking. Nevertheless, I did say I was sorry. But she was extremely angry, shouting at me, demanding my phone number so if it happened the next time she could just call me directly. She said that this is Korea, not Canada, and that I should learn more about Korean culture because, ‘Korean children don’t run around like that.” I told her that I’d heard plenty of stories of (Korean) children running around in apartments at 11 or 12 midnight and this was only 3pm. And I also said that these days in “Korean culture” the proper way to deal with the problem is to call the gwali ajosshi (Management), not confront directly or ask for a phone number. She then 102 shouted directly at Rose and made her cry. When I said she should not shout at my daughter like that, she said that since I didn’t ‘give my children a good education like Korean mothers, she had to shout at my daughter since I wouldn’t. Although this incident was resolved and there were no further conflicts with this neighbor because Anne was not Korean, her culture and her childrearing were both questioned in this encounter. The woman made assumptions about what was appropriate in Korea in contrast to what was appropriate in Canada and did not seem to consider that children, whether Korean or not, tend to make noise and that this was a typical problem in apartments, not one caused by cultural differences. Also, the woman did not practice the usual way of dealing with a noise complaint by speaking to management, but rather took it upon herself to approach Anne directly, which shows a lack of respect for Anne and her family. Furthermore, she yelled at Rose and then positioned Anne as deficient because she was not a good mother which the woman equated with a Korean mother. Positioned identities were not only revealed through Anne’s journal entry but also by Anne and Jaewon during the sharing of the language portraits. In the following excerpt taken from the language portrait discussion where Anne explained her heart, both Anne and Jaewon positioned their children: Anne: Okay, yeah, Korean is around my heart because you know, you guys are all around my heart (she gestures around the table and looks at the kids) and you guys are Korean so, there you go. And then the purple. Jaewon: No, no they are Eskimos. Look at them. Anne: Alright…. (Said in a tone of dislike. Then Anne continues her explanation.) 103 Anne: And purple goes to my mouth ‘cause what is in my heart is very easy to say in English. During this moment of the language portrait discussion, as Anne describes the part of her heart that has Korean in it, she positioned her family members as Korean as she swept her hand across the table. During this gesture which included Jaewon, Rose, and Jack, she ended by specifically looking at her two children as she identified them as Korean. In this identification of them as Koreans, she is also identifying herself as non-Korean. After she labels the children Korean, Jaewon immediately responds that they are not Korean, rather Eskimos. The moment the children are positioned as Koreans, this position is taken away by their father who would be considered a Korean. Jaewon is the only one in the family who is not positioned as other, and though he practices an identity as a transnational, his belonginess in Korea is never questioned based on his phenotype yet in this instance he positions his family members as non-Koreans. Discussion This case study provides an ample and detailed description of how four family members in a multiracial family practiced identities and had their identities positioned in Korea; these identities were revealed through language portraits, the language portrait discussion, interview data, and journal entries. As Holland et al., (1998) described, practiced identities appear in thinking, speaking, gesturing, and cultural exchange which the data collected in this article illuminates. The first research question presented in this article, how do multiracial family members identify with their languages and cultures, was answered in this article. Based on the findings, it became clear how each family member practiced and had positioned identities in Korea. Jaewon practiced an identity of a transnational which became illuminated in his language portrait where 104 he did not attach importance to language or identity which conflicted with the view of the Korean language linked to the Korean identity (Simpson, 2007). In his language portrait, he used all the languages within his repertoire to convey his language beliefs with his family. Jaewon also questioned the competitive Korean educational system as well as Korean culture, which he was able to do in unique ways having lived fifteen years in Europe. However, Jaewon was the only family member that could be defined as Korean based on pure-blood ideologies, his practiced identities did not come into conflict with larger society norms at the surface level. Meaning, Jaewon phenotypically was ‘right’ in Korean society, though it is not clear based on the data collected whether his practiced identities were accepted by the Koreans he encountered or if these changed in social spaces. As Anne was a White Canadian woman, she was constantly positioned as a foreigner in Korea, a positionality which she accepted. As Holland et al. (1998) noted, positional identities become normalized within a society and the pure-blood ideologies in Korea would suggest that Anne is an ‘Other’ based on her phenotype. Although Anne lived in Korea over 20 years and contributed to Korean society, she practiced an identity of a non- Korean, and expressed that in Korea she felt more Canadian than when she was in Canada. Anne practiced this positioned identity because she felt that she was alleviated from the pressures she observed Korean women faced, therefore she felt that this positionality suited her. This positionality was observed in her language portrait where she viewed Korean and English languages as separate, just as she accepted that the cultures were different on some level. As Korean ideologies of the English language are perceived separate from a Korean identity, Anne may have taken on local language ideologies that were also present in her classroom when teaching English. As ideologies surrounding the English language in Korea position the language and its speakers as other (Park, 2009). 105 Rose and Jack both had identity practices that conflicted with their positioned identities in Korean society which were revealed through their language portraits, journals, and interviews. As other studies have shown that multilinguals tend to place their most important languages in the chest and head areas (e.g., Soares, et al., 2021) Rose drew a Korean flag with a smiley face to represent her head and a ‘hot t-shirt’ to represent English in her chest area. Rose viewed her languages as mixed in certain parts of her body and driven by energy and emotions, but the placement of Korean on her face suggests that she identified as Korean. Along with her own explanation of Canada being a different culture from Korea, a place where she visited most summers of her life, she seemed to view it as different and not Korean. She viewed Korea as her home country and in how she viewed her appearance, as she noted when she was in Canada, her and Jack were the only Koreans. Jack’s language portrait clearly demonstrated a practiced Korean identity as he broke down his language repertoires in Korean and English and represented Korean as 85% of his body. He also chose to write his languages in Korean signaling that he wanted his family members and the researcher to view him as Korean. Jack noted in his interview his pride in being Korean linked to his knowledge of Korean history whereas he lacked pride in being Canadian, despite visiting Canada yearly, he did not have knowledge of Canadian history. The second research question, how, if at all, do multiracial family members push back on Korean-pure-blood ideologies, was answered in this study. Gee (2014) explained that master figured worlds aid in shaping and organizing notable social experiences for specific groups of people. The Korean pure-blood ideologies are part of the master figured world in the Korean context, which allow ‘pure-blooded’ Koreans to position themselves as the norm within society and position those who do not fall within this definition as ‘other.’ Therefore, the experiences of 106 multiracial families are constantly negotiating this master world together and how they pushed back, if at all, varied between family members. As Jaewon did not need to resist this master figured world for himself, he did not outright push back on it. In fact, when his children were positioned by Anne as Korean, he refuted it and made a joke. Yet at the same time, he resisted the idea that the Korean language was connected to a Korean identity which is a way of questioning and resisting this ideology. Anne resisted Korean pure-blood ideologies by labelling her children as Korean during the language portrait discussion which seemed to align with their practiced their identities. The children in fact, were more often positioned in ways that did not align with their practiced identities which caused them to resist these pure-blood ideologies in the public domain. As the children phenotypically appeared different to other Koreans, they were met with the master figured world of pure-blood in public spaces such as at school. Rose pushed back on this figured world and her resistance evolved as she grew from making hostile responses to trying to educate others. At the same time, Rose perceived changes in the master figured world through a recent encounter where she was asked if she was half-Korean by a peer. As more and more multiracial and multiethnic children go through the Korean education system, their experiences will become more familiar in the Korean conscious and hopefully lead to the creation of new definitions of Koreanness. Jack also pushed back on Korean pure-blood ideologies by speaking in Korean and making sure that those who were positioning him as ‘foreign’ heard that he was a Korean speaker. Interestingly, he pushed back on the positioned identity by drawing on the Korean ideologies of legitimate Korean speakers and Korean identity. 107 Based on these findings, it is clear that the practiced and positioned identities of families in a multiracial family in Korea are diverse and that family members push back on these ideologies in different ways based on these practiced and positioned identities. Implications This study has implications for Korean multiracial identities and how schools and parents can work to dismantle pure-blood ideologies and help foster positive multicultural identities in multiracial children. First of all, the curriculum of Korean schools needs to put an end to the notion that the Korean people are pure-blooded and acknowledge that Korea is a multicultural nation made up of individuals of various backgrounds (Kim, 2020). Additionally, individuals that make up Korean history that do not fit the Korean definition of Koreanness should be highlighted in history books such as Queen Surirata (Heo-Hwang-ok) who was the Indian wife of Korean King Suro whose descendants are believed to be members of the Gimhae Kim, Lee, and Heo clans. This will allow students to both question these pure-blood ideologies and accept the diversity of Korea in the past and today. Also, language portraits can be used at school to help teachers understand their multiracial children’s language repertoires and practiced identities. This would reveal to teachers how multiracial children want their teachers to view them and can help teachers understand their multiracial students better. Finally, Korean teachers have not been prepared for the diversity of their classrooms and have been found to be insensitive to the experiences of multilingual and multiracial students in their classrooms (e.g., Kim, 2020; Lew & Choi, 2021) therefore pre- service teacher education needs to include strategies that support CLD students and push back on notions of Koreans as pure-blooded. 108 Families also need to support their multiracial children by teaching them about the culture of their parent who is ‘othered’ in Korean society. If children like Jack do not know about both of their parents’ cultures, a rejection of minoritized language and culture could develop. This is a disadvantage for multiracial/multicultural children as they have unique knowledge about the world and cultures that is not experienced by children in mono-cultural and monolingual homes. To support children’s pride and acceptance of their cultures, both parents need to be involved in familial holidays. Holidays have cultural implications and children learning about both of their parents’ holidays and having them treated equally important by both parents shows a respect for both cultures. If the family has the resources to bring their children to the ‘othered’ parents’ home country, time should be spent teaching the history of that country, especially for children like Jack, for whom history seems to be important. Furthermore, parents could use children’s books as windows, mirrors, and sliding glass doors (Bishop, 1990) to highlight the ‘othered’ parents’ culture and have discussions surrounding the literature to support a positive multicultural identity in the children. Additionally, both parents need to be sensitive to the experiences of their multiracial children and consider how their children’s positioned identities can affect their feelings of belonginess in Korea. They can do this by reflecting on their own positionality and also having open discussions with their own positioned experiences in Korea or in a different context. These can help the children understand how all family members are positioned in different ways in different contexts. This study also showed that the ways that multiracial children will handle their positionality will vary within the same family and change and evolve over time. Rose’s handling of this positionality has changed over time and Jack’s may too as he grows. Parents of multiracial children in Korea need to listen to their children’s experiences and think about ways 109 that the children and they can push back on notions of Koreanness while also supporting their children’s identity development. Therefore, future research should look at how parents successfully support their multiracial children’s positionality needs to be explored. The usage of language portraits as a data collection method in this study has implications for families and schools. The use of language portraits in the home can help parents understand how their children practice identities. This will allow parents to understand how their children practice identities and consider how to support them. However, it must be noted that practiced identities are constantly changing within a context and also as children grow. Therefore, the language portrait can give parents insight into their children’s practiced identities but should not be assumed to be fixed. Recreating language portraits periodically could lead to a better understanding of the children’s shifting identities. 110 REFERENCES 111 REFERENCES Ahn, J.H. (2018). Mixed-race politics and neoliberal multiculturalism in South Korean media. Springer International Publishing. Bishop, R. S. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives: Choosing and Using Books for the Classroom,6(3), ix–xi. Botsis, H., & Bradbury, J. (2018). Metaphorical sense-making: Visual-narrative language portraits of South African students. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 15(2-3), 412- 430. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2018.1430735 Busch, B. (2010). School language profiles: Valorizing linguistic resources in heteroglossic situations in South Africa. Language and Education, 24(4), 283-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500781003678712 Busch, B. (2012). The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 503-523. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams056 De Mente, B. L. (2018). The Korean mind: Understanding contemporary Korean culture. Tuttle Publishing. Dressler, R. (2014). Exploring linguistic identity in young multilingual learners. TESL Canada Journal, (32)1, 42-52. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i1.1198 Dyson, A.H. & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. Teachers College Press. Freeman, M., & Mathison, S. (2009). Researching children's experiences. Guilford Press. Galdas, P. (2017). Revisiting bias in qualitative research: Reflections on its relationship with funding and impact. International Journal of Qualitative Research, 16(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917748992 García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2020). Translanguaging and literacies. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(4), 553-571. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.286 Gauntlett, D., & Holzwarth, P. (2006). Creative and visual methods for exploring identities. Visual Studies, 21(1), 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860600613261 Gee, J. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and Method. Routledge. 112 Gumperz, (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. American Anthropologist, 66(6), 137-153. Han, E. J., & Price, P. G. (2015). Uncovering the hidden power of language: Critical race theory, critical language socialization and multicultural families in Korea. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 44(2), 108-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2015.1028427 Hayik, R. (2012). Identity representations in visual texts. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 35(3), 293-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2012.717435 Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard University Press. Jenks, C. (2019). English for sale: Using race to create value in the Korean ELT market. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(4), 517-538. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0090 Kang, S.W. (2010). Multicultural education and the rights to education of migrant children in South Korea. Educational Review, 62(3), 287-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2010.503599 Kang, H., & Kim, I. (2012). Perceived and actual competence and ethnic identity in heritage language learning: A case of Korean-American college students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 279- 294. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.626846 Kim, C. S. (2011). Voices of foreign brides: The roots and development of multiculturalism in Korea. AltaMira Press. Kim, H. A. (2020). Understanding “Koreanness”: Racial stratification and colorism in Korea and implications for Korean multicultural education. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 22(1), 76-97. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v22i1.1834 Kim, H.J. (2004). National identity in Korean curriculum. Canadian Social Studies, 38(3). Kim, T., & Reichmuth, H.L. (2021). Exploring cultural logics in teacher learning: Collaborative autoethnography on transnational teaching and learning. Professional Development in Education, 47(2-3), 257-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1862278 Lanza, E., & Li Wei (2016). Multilingual encounters in transcultural families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(7), 653-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1151198 Lee, J. S. (2002). The Korean language in America: The role of cultural identity in heritage language learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 117- 133. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310208666638 113 Lee, M. (2008). Mixed race peoples in the Korean national imaginary and family. Korean Studies 32, 56–85. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23718931 Lee, C. S. (2017). Narratives of ‘mixed race’ youth in South Korea: Racial order and in- betweenness. Asian Ethnicity, 18(4), 522-542. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631369.2016.1219940 Lee, M.W., Kim, H., & Han, M.S. (2021) Language ideologies of Korean mothers with preschool-aged children: Comparison, money, and early childhood education. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42(7), 637-649. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1713137 Lew, S., & Choi, J. (2020). Addressing unsolved educational problems about linguistically and culturally diverse children: Perspectives of early childhood educators in South Korea. Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(4), 1194-1211. http://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1747976 Lim, T. (2010). Rethinking belongingness in Korea: Transnational migration, “migrant marriages” and the politics of multiculturalism. Pacific Affairs, 83(1), 51-71. https://doi.org/10.5509/201083151 Moon, K.H.S. (2015). South Korea’s demographic changes and their political impact. Brookings Institution East Asia Policy Paper Series 10. https://www.brookings.edu/research/south- koreas-demographic-changes-and-their-political-impact/ Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305 Park, M.Y. (2017a). Resisting linguistic and ethnic marginalization: Voices of Southeast Asian marriage-migrant women in Korea. Language and Intercultural Communication,17(2), 118-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2016.1165240 Park, M. Y. (2017). Developing bilingualism in a largely monolingual society. In Z.L. Rocha & F. Fozdar (Eds.), Mixed Race in Asia: Past, Present, and Future (pp. 67-81). Routledge. Park, M. Y. (2019). Challenges of maintaining the mother’s language: Marriage-migrants and their mixed-heritage children in South Korea. Language and Education, 33(5), 431-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582662 Purkarthofer, J. (2019). Building expectations: Imagining family language policy and heteroglossic social spaces. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(3), 724-739. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916684921 Reichmuth, H. L. (2020). Language Investment of White native English-speaking wives in transnational marriages in Korea. I-LanD Journal: Identity, Language, and Diversity, 67- 86. https://doi.org/10.26379/IL2020001_004$xDOI 114 Riessman, C.K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage. Simpson, A. (2007). Language and national identity in Asia: Thematic Introduction. In A. Simpson (Ed.), Language and national identity in Asia (pp. 1-30). Oxford University Press. Soares, C. T., Duarte, J., & Günther-van der Meij, M. (2020). ‘Red is the colour of the heart’: Making young children’s multilingualism visible through language portraits. Language and Education, 35(1), 22-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1833911 Sohn, B. G., & Kang, M. (2021). “We contribute to the development of South Korea”: Bilingual womanhood and politics of bilingual policy in South Korea. Multilingua, 40(2), 175-198. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2020-0034 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2020). International migration 2020 highlights. https://www.un.org/en/desa/international- migration-2020- highlights#:~:text=The%20report%20found%20that%20two,cent%20of%20the%20worl d's%20total Urrietta, L. (2007). Identity production in figured worlds: How some Mexican Americans become Chicana/o activist educators. The Urban Review, 39(2), 228-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-007-0050-1 Wilson, S. (2020). Family language policy through the eyes of bilingual children: The case of French heritage speakers in the UK. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(2), 121-139, https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1595633 Yin, R.K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. (6th ed.). SAGE. Yoo, S. (2017). Legal reform related to interracial Koreans. Washington University Global Studies Review,16(2). http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol16/iss2/9 115 CONCLUSION This dissertation which has its roots in my childhood, represents not only the lived experiences of the bilingual and biracial family that participated in this study, but mine as well. I begin this conclusion to my dissertation by briefly speaking across the three dissertation articles, and then describing their implications for families, teachers, and the field of teacher education in Korea. I conclude this dissertation with the study’s limitations. Implications In this dissertation I have highlighted the experiences of one Korean-Canadian family with their language ideologies and practices, the influences of parents’ ethnotheories alongside their transnational knowledge, and the practiced and positioned identities of family members in the Korean context. The implications of the dissertation for bi/multilingual families are powerful. From this family it becomes clear that parental attitudes, practices, and knowledge are important for intergenerational language transmission and that no one theory can completely account for intergenerational language transmission. Although taking up a translanguaging stance will reduce the harmful impact of monolingual ideologies for bilingual children in this family, the combination of the parents’ transnational knowledge and bonding and translanguaging practices, supported their children’s learning of English. At the same time, it is clear that societal level ideologies have an effect on bi/multilingual families and influence how members are positioned and view language. Yet, these ideologies and positionalities are not passively accepted by the members of the family. From this family we can see how the family members pushed back on language, childrearing, and racial positioning that they encountered in Korea. Each member did so in their own unique way and to a different extent. In fact, the parents’ transnational knowledge pushed back on the competitive learning environment, the children pushed back on Korean pure- 116 blood ideologies, and the parents’ translanguaging practices pushed back on monolingual ideologies. It is clear using three unique lenses to look at one bilingual family reveals different aspects of the family’s experiences and knowledge, as well as their practices and beliefs. Taken together, we can gather a fuller picture of how a bilingual family functions in South Korea. Families As parenting literature often suggests following OPOL policies for intermarried families, it is important that parents are aware of the harmful consequences which could result in taking on this approach in a strict manner (e.g., Wilson, 2020). In fact, taking on a translanguaging stance (García, et al., 2017) is more important to support their children and how they perceive their language practices. Parents can do this by making explicit the language practices that the family engages in through audio/video recording conversations. Parents should also acknowledge the strengths of their children’s language knowledge, especially of the language they feel limited in; view their knowledge as assets, not deficits. Bonding activities are also important for bi/multilingual families and relationships between parents and children and such practices could be purposefully implemented by parents to support their children’s language growth. Furthermore, in multiracial families in Korea, parents should focus on teaching their children about the culture and history of their parent who is ‘othered’ in Korean society in order for the children to feel pride in their family’s heritage. Additionally, both parents need to be sensitive to the experiences of their multiracial children and consider how their children’s positioned identities can affect their feelings of belonginess in Korea. Parents can do this by reflecting on their own positionality and by having open discussions about their own positioned experiences in Korea or in another context. These can help the children understand how all family members are positioned in different ways in different contexts to help them navigate their own experiences. 117 Teachers This study has several implications for teachers of bi/multilingual students in Korea. As it is clear that Korean pure-blood ideologies impact the positionality of multiracial children in Korea and likely conflict with their practiced identities, using language portraits (Busch, 2010) as well as suggesting the use of language portraits to parents can give the teacher and parents insight into the multiracial children’s language and identity practices. Furthermore, Korean teachers need to be aware of how the curriculum can affect the ways in which multiracial Korean children are positioned in their classroom, the school, and society. Teachers can push back on these pure-blood ideologies by presenting diverse stories and perspectives into their classroom to create a more inclusive environment. This study also illuminates the need for teachers to be aware of the language ideologies present in the larger society and those of their multilingual students. Language portraits will help to reveal the unique ideologies that each of their multilingual students possess yet this alone is not sufficient. Teachers also need to be aware of the harmful implications of using a monolingual lens to view bilingual students as this can have negative ramifications for bilingual Korean/English speaking children as it is unlikely that the child will speak English on par with their Korean proficiency level growing up in Korea. Teachers can support bilingual children by taking a translanguaging stance in their classroom and modeling translanguaging practices (García, et al., 2017). Furthermore, teachers can reframe English as a means of communication as opposed to an external subject that is not a part of a Korean identity (Park, 2009), which will promote a more inclusive classroom environment. 118 Field of Education When considering how teachers can be prepared for teaching bi/multilingual children this study has implications that suggest that teacher educators can do a lot to improve the learning experiences of bi/multilingual/multiracial students, especially in the Korean context. Just as bi/multilingual children in the U.S. context have been found to be subject to monolingual ideologies of bilinguals and have their cultures devalued at schools (Clark, 2020), the bilingual children in this family, especially Jack, did not feel pride in his Canadian background. This shows the power of language ideologies present in Korea and their impact on multilingual families, even for those families that are considered privileged. As Korean teachers move schools every 3-5 years (Kim & Reichmuth, 2021), and the number of multilingual/multiracial children in Korean schools continues to grow (Lew & Choi, 2020), Korean teachers during some point in their career will have multilingual/multiracial students in their classroom. Therefore, Korean teachers need to be prepared to create inclusive teaching practices that acknowledge the diversity in their classroom. Furthermore, the curriculum in Korean schools needs to be reevaluated and redesigned to redefine what it means to be a Korean in new ways that are more inclusive of the current diversity of the Korean population. Limitations The main limitation of this study was that it took place during the COVID-19 pandemic which prevented me from going to South Korea to meet the participants in person and conduct participant-observations. Therefore, I had to rely on video and audio recorded material sent to me by family members. Having the opportunity to see them participating in activities that they wanted me to see was interesting and possibly more intimate than if I had been there. However, recording the interaction could have limited what I observed compared to if I had been present. 119 For example, it was hard to see their entire home or multiple interactions in one day as I received recordings taken during different days, not one full day or period of time. An advantage to the recorded observations was that I was able to re-watch interactions, allowing me to view the interactions through different lenses, examine gestures, as well as facial expressions (DuFon, 2002). However, not being present and knowing Anne the most out of the family members, it might have felt strange for the rest of the family members to record family interactions for someone they barely knew. However, when I asked Rose during her second interview about an interaction between her and Jack, and if the interaction happened because she knew it was being recorded, she stated that she forgot that they were recording the game. This could mean that once family members began to engage in an activity, they became more focused on the activity, not the recording device. Another limitation to this study could be the amount of time devoted to data collection. The data were collected over one summer; having more data from the family over a longer period of time could have resulted in more nuanced understandings of family members. Additionally, Jaewon only participated in one interview and did not respond to the journal prompts. Although his interview was longer than the other participant’s and he spoke to me a little during Anne’s second interview, I would have gotten more information from him if he had participated more. 120 REFERENCES 121 REFERENCES Busch, B. (2010). School language profiles: Valorizing linguistic resources in heteroglossic situations in South Africa. Language and Education, 24(4), 283-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500781003678712 Clark, A. (2020) Cultural relevance and linguistic flexibility in literature discussions with emergent bilingual children. Bilingual Research Journal, 43(1), 50-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2020.1722974 DuFon, M. A. Video recording in ethnographic SLA research: Some issues of validity in data collection. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 40-59. García, O., Johnson, S.I., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Caslon, Inc. Kim, T., & Reichmuth, H.L. (2021). Exploring cultural logics in teacher learning: Collaborative autoethnography on transnational teaching and learning. Professional Development in Education, 47(2-3), 257-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1862278 Lew, S., & Choi, J. (2020). Addressing unsolved educational problems about linguistically and culturally diverse children: Perspectives of early childhood educators in South Korea. Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(4), 1194-1211. http://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1747976 Park, J.S.Y. (2009). The local construction of a global language: Ideologies of English in South Korea. Mouton de Gruyter. Wilson, S. (2020) Family language policy through the eyes of bilingual children: the case of French heritage speakers in the UK. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(2), 121-139. 122