Critical Discourse Analysis on Parental Language Ideologies of Bilingual and Multilingual Child-Rearing and Language Education Using Facebook and Internet Forums

Abstract

This study examines the computer-mediated discussion topics of parents who raise bilingual and multilingual children in four active Facebook and Internet forums, and investigates how the language ideologies embedded in the multiple languages being used in these forums are expressed. In this study, 179 data points, including users’ posts and thread comments, were collected to identify the most frequently discussed topics as part of my description of the database, in order to identify parental ideologies by using values analysis. The five most-discussed topics were selected to make a critical discourse analysis on the narratives to understand the language ideologies regarding the use of multiple languages, and regarding what users of the groups are saying specifically about the languages when analyzing metalinguistic discourses. This study found the most recurrent language ideologies that parents expressed on these online forums were supporting bilingualism/multilingualism, and claim that bilingualism/multilingualism is advantageous. Parents also demonstrate language ideologies supporting keeping languages separate, such as following the one parent one language (OPOL) method, using the minority language at home, and so on. A detailed values analysis with illustrative sample messages from the online posts and comments also more specifically shows the recurrent language ideologies identified, and parents’ views underlying their narratives on their posts and thread comments.

1. Introduction

Raising children in a bilingual and multilingual family could be challenging. Online forums provide a new platform for parents to seek support and suggestions and share experiences and resources with other members who are experiencing similar situations along their multilingual child upbringing journey. A previous study focused on characterizing these forums’ users’ demographics and identified the most frequent themes (Daussà and Qian 2022). The current study aims to research four Facebook and Internet forums that are active in 2023. Firstly, the study aims at examining the overall characteristics of the data. The overall characteristics of the data in this study can be defined as the following: on the online sites themselves, and in users’ posts and comments on the four sites, what are the language uses, which languages are discussed and emphasized, and what language elements are presented? More specifically, for example, what language speakers are the participants in these online forums? Which languages are parents writing about? Are there particular languages being discussed? Secondly, the study wants to understand what parents raising bilingual and multilingual children are discussing on the Facebook and Internet forums, in other words, to figure out the major topics that the users are posting and discussing in these forums for bilingual/multilingual upbringing. Thirdly, and central to this study’s goal, I will probe into the users’ language ideologies by studying the discourse of the forums’ user posts and comments. Thus, a third main objective of this study is to analyze what the users are specifically saying about languages. Therefore, I will examine and understand the overall language ideologies of the multiple languages that are being used in these groups by finding out the recurrent parental language ideologies. For example, is there any evidence presented via the original posts and comments that some users prefer a model of subtractive bilingualism? Is the idea of keeping languages separate, such as the one parent one language policy (OPOL), something that comes up in the contents of the sites or in the posts and comments? What are the users’ ideologies about bilingualism/multilingualism, especially in the cases when multiple languages cause children’s speech delay? The following sections will outline the relevant literature of the study regarding language attitudes and language ideologies, and the digital-mediated communications and genres of computer-mediated communication (CMC).

2. Literature Review

My rationale for studying the discussion topics and language ideologies of the bilingual and multilingual parents who use Facebook and Internet forums is based on what the previous literature has analyzed, and the necessity of further probing into the frequently discussed topics in these online forums. A discussion topic, in the current study, refers to a subject or concentration in a discourse or a section of a discourse, which is parents’ posts and comments on the Facebook and Internet forums. More importantly, the study of online parental discussion topics provided me with a focus to analyze the language ideologies of parents’ written discourses manifested through their posts and comments on these forums.

With the development of new technologies and electronic media, communication on the web has become a productive field for studying and understanding language choice and the use of non-standard varieties of languages among multilingual users (Cru 2018; Iorio 2016; Lee 2016; Leppänen and Peuronen 2012).

As Bakhtin (1986) states, the difference between primary and secondary (ideological) genres is very great and fundamental, but this is precisely why the nature of the utterance should be revealed and defined via the analysis of both types (Bakhtin 1986). The very interrelations between primary and ideological genres and the process of the historical formation of the latter shed light on the nature of the utterance, and above all on the complex problem of the interrelations among language, ideology, and world view (Bakhtin 1986). Bilingual and multilingual families are facing situations such as, for immigrant families, local schools and institutions that focus on the dominant language instead of their minority and heritage language. As language ideology bridges between linguistic practice and its users in sociocultural practices (Gal 1992), a Bakhtinian analysis of the parental utterances will be important to understand the language ideologies of bilingual/multilingual families using Facebook and Internet forums. It can also help us to understand the bilingual/multilingual families’ language attitudes towards bilingualism/multilingualism and various languages, family language policies, and expectations particularly for their children, which may help the potential social changes in families’ language transmission, maintenance, and education.

2.1. Language Attitudes and Language Ideologies

King (1999) stated that, generally speaking, an attitude is directed toward a certain object (King 1999), and it can be defined as a disposition to respond favorably or unfavorably to an object, person, institution, or event (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Baker 1992). Language ideologies, in contrast, refer to a broader system of beliefs, norms, or values (King 1999). Rumsey somewhat more broadly views language ideologies as the “shared bodies of commonsense notions about the nature of language in the world” (Rumsey 1990, p. 346). Language ideologies can be more specifically regarded as the social constructs that reflect a particular language’s historical roles, economic values, political power, and social functions (Curdt-Christiansen 2016; Blommaert 2006). According to these statements, while a language attitude is usually considered as a specific response to specific perspectives of a particular language, language ideology is an integrated system of beliefs regarding a language, or possibly language in general (King 1999). As King (1999) claimed, it is essential to include the analysis of language ideology in the inquiry into the gap between language attitudes and language behaviors (King 1999).

2.1.1. Language Attitudes and Ideologies in Real-Life Contexts

Previous studies have studied language ideologies in various settings, both in real-life contexts and in digital settings. For instance, Curdt-Christiansen (2016) explored how language ideologies as underlying forces could impact and determine parental decisions on which language to maintain and practice in homes in Singaporean multilingual families. Language ideologies in this research are defined as language users’ evaluative perceptions and conceptions of language and language practices according to users’ beliefs regarding the social utility, power, and value of a language in a given society (Curdt-Christiansen 2016). Three sets of data are elicited to examine family language policy, including a family language audit, interview with parents, and participant observation with recorded social interactions by employing ethnographic tools of inquiry through regular home visits to the participants. Focusing on three families, a Chinese, a Malay, and an Indian family, representing the main ethno-linguistic make-up of Singapore, this research specifically examined what these families do and do not do, and what they claim to do and not to do, which are closely linked to language ideologies and linguistic practices in day-to-day interactions. Language ideologies are identified through carefully examining the conversations and interactions of the interviews with participants (Curdt-Christiansen 2016). This study shows the importance of studying language ideologies to gain a better understanding of multilingual and multicultural families’ family language policy and language education; my study aims to find this in online parental forums. Additionally, more recent research by Emerick and Goldberg (2023) specifically examined two language ideologies, namely standard language ideologies (SLI) and monoglossic language ideology (MLI), in the policy context of college and career readiness in Pennsylvania. Employing a sequential mixed-methods design informed by transformative epistemology, that is, centering on the role of power in the process of knowledge creation and in mediating discourses of emergent bilingual students (EBs), their study claimed that although career and technical education (CTE) educators generally had a positive attitude towards EBs, they were affected by the SLI and MLI. Such language ideologies with other institutional factors resulted in educators implementing restrictive language policies in their classrooms for the underserved EBs regardless of their general positive attitudes towards EBs. For example, teachers rationalize restricting students’ language due to practical reasons, such as holding that because industry certification exams are generally only administered in English, introductions must be in English (Schissel 2018). This leads to the creation of classroom-level policies based on teachers’ personal beliefs and reproduced deficit ideologies such as MLIs in this case that are not ideal for educating EBs (Emerick and Goldberg 2023). Thus, understanding language ideologies is essential in understanding the gap between educators’ positive attitudes and their deficit classroom policies on EBs, as King (1999) had claimed.

2.1.2. Language Attitudes and Ideologies in Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)

With regard to previous studies regarding language attitudes and ideologies in CMC particularly, Nascimento (2018), for example, analyzed how the cultural manifestation of contemporary rap is located in a broader project of reinvention and reconstitution of languages and linguistic practices and language ideologies by analyzing online video clips produced by Brô MC (Nascimento 2018; Makoni and Pennycook 2007). This research interpreted that the production of Kaiowá rap implies the continuity, strengthening, and updating of some aspects of the indigenous culture and identity such as their communicative practices through the affiliation to hip-hop culture (Nascimento 2018). The study claimed that the biased ideology supporting the ‘labeling’ of the rap produced by Brazilian natives as ‘foreign’ is expressive of the Governor’s racial attitude instead of merely expressions of his musical taste regarding rap music or impassioned nationalism (Nascimento 2018). Nascimento’s study also presented that it is also expressive of the governor’s negative view of the indigenous populations as obstacles to national economic development (Nascimento 2018). Thus, the analysis of the linguistic attitudes and ideologies provides profound interpretations regarding an ethnographic perspective of the music genres.

In addition, Vessey (2016) also studied language ideologies on the social media platform Twitter. The study investigated the case of Pastagate by drawing on a corpus of Tweets containing PASTAGATE, and used corpus-assisted discourse analysis to analyze language ideologies in English and French Tweets. This work revealed divergent language ideologies and representations of the Pastagate affair, and suggested that language ideological debates in the online world may have some implications for minority languages in the offline setting of the nation-states (Vessey 2016). Vessey’s work also provides me with the inspiration and support that the analyses of parental language ideologies in bilingual and multilingual child-rearing and language education are relevant to and reflective of real-life child-rearing contexts.

2.1.3. Language Attitudes and Ideologies among Parents on Social Media

In terms of the specific research conducted about parental attitudes and ideologies on social media, Kostoulas and Motsiou (2022) used a data corpus containing a large quantity of words generated by drawing data from two online parental communities that focus on families where Modern Greek was one of the family languages. Their study used thematic analysis of the online parental discourses to examine the parents’ stated attitudes, beliefs, and practices about language, family, and education as they correlated with plurilingualism and linguistic development. Their work found strong positive views about fostering plurilingualism and some concerns about balancing different aspects of children’s developing linguistic repertoire. They also reported that established language development and management practices (e.g., OPOL, minority language at home) were supplemented with more flexible ones, which indicates adjustment to emerging multilingual norms (Kostoulas and Motsiou 2022).

Very few research works have shed light on the language attitudes and language ideologies of parents on social media or those doing online parenting. Even less is known specifically regarding the language ideologies and attitudes expressed in the online discourses of bilingual and multilingual families’ children upbringing and language education by using digital forums.

Nevertheless, there exists a theoretical, practical, and methodological significance of my study. Firstly, in terms of the theoretical significance of the current study, it can be clearly found from the literature review in Section 2 that social media and online forums offer a new source of data to study bilingual and multilingual education and child-rearing. While language ideologies about multilingual families’ language policy and strategies are studied in real-world settings, few studies have studied them in online forums. Additionally, there have been studies, as stated in the literature review, studying language ideologies regarding other topics on social media and online contexts. In sum, the current study can potentially contribute to this theoretical gap by figuring out parents’ language ideologies regarding multiple language use, language planning, and strategies in the context of these online forums.

Secondly, when it comes to the practical significance of the study, if we manage to find out how parents’ language ideologies impact their family language planning and policy, and their attitudes towards multilingual education and children upbringing, we can understand their unique condition. In this way, we can implement more tailored strategies regarding the curriculum in an educational setting, in a counseling setting, etc. in terms of bilingual and multilingual families’ and children’s social belonging and well-being.

Thirdly, as for the methodological significance, this study uses and presents vibrant data produced through those Facebook groups and Internet forums with parents’ proactive motivations to share their experiences. Also, the use of critical discourse analysis on this database can provide us with a new understanding of the effectiveness of researching online parenting discourses in social media and internet Forums.

Based on the above-elaborated reasoning, I argue it is necessary to probe into the language ideologies regarding the use of multiple languages on Facebook and the Internet for bilingual/multilingual upbringing and language education, as well as what users of the groups are saying specifically about the languages when analyzing metalinguistic discourses. For example, it is important to examine whether there are discourses in the sites’ posts and comments about what happens when children reach school age and are exposed to monolingual ideologies in the local school that favor the dominant language (e.g., English).

2.2. Digital-Mediated Communications, and Genres on CMC

Since my study focuses on computer-mediated communication on Facebook and Internet forums for bilingual/multilingual children’s child-rearing and language education, it is also necessary to understand the development of digital-mediated communication, and the genres of social media and CMC.

Nearly all of us engage in some form of online community, or at the very least, digital communication. From niche subreddits to our family’s Facebook posts to self-help webinars, the human experience exists in a blended duality: while still physical, it is increasingly digital. While traditional ethnography is limited to the present moment of the ethnographer’s experience, trace ethnography of existing internet logs, text data, and social media posts can also provide fruitful resources for study (Hampton 2017).

Previous research reported that the information technology revolution has brought about an increasing number of CMC opportunities, giving rise to the new configuration of global social organization that Castells (2000) calls ‘network society’. Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and ad hoc discussion forums such as YouTube, TikTok, and the genre of blogs and vlogs, constitute new spheres of online sociability that contain new social practices of self-presentation and reflexive construction of identity (Androutsopoulos 2015; Daussà and Qian 2022).

Recent studies also have found the interrelations between the individuals’ online language practices and language ideologies and their offline environment (Hillewaert 2022), as also portrayed in Vessey’s (2016) study described in the literature review section. As Varis and van Nuenen (2017) and Hillewaert (2022) stated, “individuals never act within an ideological vacuum, and that online and offline environments are thus never fully detached from each other” (Varis and van Nuenen 2017, p. 7; Hillewaert 2022). In spite of the possibility of being shaped by a sense of freedom in online contexts from standard language practices, linguistic and orthographic decisions in an online context are closely related to individuals’ norms, and are often largely based on their direct response or intentional deviation from the standards (Bahri 2022). Based on this literature, discourses occurring on social media or more broadly CMC appear to be inter-connected with the offline environments of the users, but may differ in terms of the distinct contexts and dynamics created such as for audiences and built in these digital platforms and computer-mediated discussions.

2.3. Theoretical Orientations

2.3.1. Critical Discourse Analysis

The current study draws on the discourse reframed for computer-mediated communication (CMC), and employs the critical discourse analysis methodology in terms of data interpretations. Discourse, as Androutsopoulos (2013) stated, is a language in use or naturally occurring spoken language in diverse social contexts, and juxtaposed either to text or to a structuralist approach to language that stops at the sentence level (Androutsopoulos 2013). Based on these illustrations, computer-mediated discourse (CMD) refers particularly to the naturally occurring written language in human-to-human communications through computer networks (Androutsopoulos 2013; Herring 2001, 2004), such as those on Facebook, social media platforms, and online forums.

Viewing CMD from a discourse-as-social-practice perspective thus focuses on how discourse in the new media, such as on social media like Facebook and Twitter, shapes the production of knowledge and the negotiations of power relations (Androutsopoulos 2013), as well as the language ideologies embedded and underlying certain language practices and uses. According to Gee, discourses are “ways of combining and integrating language, actions, interactions, ways of thinking, believing, valuing and using various symbols, tools, and objects to enact a particular sort of socially recognizable identity” (Gee 2005, p. 21).

Critical discourse analysis, as one of the forms of discourse analysis, more specifically, defines discourses as socially situated and institutionally regulated language practices with a reality-constructing capacity (Fairclough and Wodak 1997; van Dijk 2008). As van Dijk (1993) claimed, in order to be able to relate power and discourse in an explicit way, we need the ‘cognitive interface’ of models, knowledge, attitudes, and ideologies, and other social representations of the social mind, which also connects the individual with the social, and relates the micro- and macro-levels of social structure (van Dijk 1993). Critical discourse analysis aims to understand what structures, strategies, or other properties of text, talk, verbal interaction, or communicative events play a part in these modes of reproduction (van Dijk 1993). Critical discourse analysis provides a theoretical framework that relates textual features with the contexts in which those textual features are produced, reproducing or reinforcing social power dynamics and ideologies (van Leeuwen 2008). With a focus on the specific genres in the data collected specifically from those Facebook and Internet forums whose main users are parents who are raising bilingual and multilingual children, this study will mainly use values analysis when analyzing parental language ideologies, as illustrated in more detail in Section 2.3.2: Values Analysis.

2.3.2. Values Analysis

Based on Daiute (2014), individual expressions in narrative research are always related to diverse values that are in relation to diverse people and activities that narrators are interacting with. Narrative is thus more than communicating personal experiences, and is also a means of social relations and social change, through the interactions with diverse values that organize meaning (Daiute 2014). Thus, considering diverse values and the social values of powers is important to understand the meaning of the narratives. Values analysis examines the guiding influences of narratives by participants in diverse roles—stakeholders/actors who have diverse interests, goals, and activities across a social system, as expressed via cultural products such as documents, mission statements, news reports, curricula, and personal narratives (Daiute 2014) such as users’ posts and sharing on social media platforms. All the illustrative messages from the four forums’ posts/comments are in italics.

Research Questions:

Through a literature review of the previous relevant studies, I put forward several research questions along with appropriate supporting sources from the literature. The research questions are summarized as follows:

• What are the overall characteristics of the data in terms of the online sites themselves, users’ posts, and comments on the four sites?
• What are the major topics that the posts and comments of the bilingual/multilingual Facebook groups and Internet forums are discussing? That is, what are the users who are raising bilingual and multilingual children using these Facebook groups to help them with? What are the particular questions and concerns regarding the use of multiple languages and bilingual/multilingual upbringing?
• Among the most frequently discussed topics of parents on the Facebook groups and Internet forums, what are the parents’ language ideologies regarding the use of multiple languages, and what are users of the groups saying specifically about the languages when analyzing metalinguistic discourses?

3. Method

3.1. Data Collection

3.1.1. Data Collection Sites

The data collection sites are three Facebook web groups and an Internet forum about bilingual/multilingual families’ children’s language learning and education. Groups and forums are selected through purposive criterion sampling (Palys 2008). The main criteria used for data elicitation of the Facebook groups and the Internet forum are the following:

• Explicitly referred to as bilingualism and multilingualism in its description
• Explicit reference to more than one language in the family
• Public access of the groups and forum
• Posts and comments on the groups tend to stay on topic

3.1.2. Data Collection Method

Data were collected with systematic observation of the online activities of the four online forums. Data were collected from the posts and posts’ thread comments from the four selected Facebook groups and Internet forum as listed below. The posts’ thread comments were added because those user-generated comments under the original posts also present some meaningful information. Also, given the accessible individual user’s reactions to the posts’ content presented, as well as the feedback welcome characteristic of the Facebook platforms (Daussà and Qian 2022), the original posts together with the thread comments (Hilliard 2023) provide new ways to understand the language practices, and language ideologies of the bilingual/multilingual users of these online Facebook groups.

The Facebook and Internet forums for this study have been observed for about two months before systematic data collection. I collected the posts and their thread comments posted from September 2022 to November 2023 in each of the four Facebook groups and Internet forum. The systematic data collection period is from early November 2023 to the end of November 2023. 200 data including posts and their thread comments were collected initially from the four Facebook and Internet forums. After deleting obvious duplicates and comments with no textual information such as emojis because the study mainly analyzed the discourses, there were 179 data in total, including original posts and thread comments. Specifically, the data were presented as follows:

Facebook group 1 (N = 97)

Facebook group 2 (N = 10)

Facebook group 3 (N = 33)

Internet forum 4 (N = 39)

The data were collected without interacting with participants. To protect users’ privacy and confidentiality, all the data collected for analysis in this study do not contain any users’ names and identifiable information, but only contain the contents of the posts and comments themselves that are merely for the study’s analyses. The specific names of the four Facebook groups and Internet forum were not presented to protect the users’ and online sites’ privacy and confidentiality. The four online sites are represented by using Facebook group 1, Facebook group 2, Facebook group 3, and Internet forum 4, respectively.

Facebook group 3 primarily attracts members who are non-native speakers raising multilingual Chinese children. The other three forums do not have an obvious focus on their members, while we found users share about Spanish more than other languages.

4. Data Analysis

The current study uses a mixed methods analysis with a brief quantitative analysis and a detailed qualitative critical discourse analysis, illustrated in detail in the following sections.

4.1. Overall Characteristics of the Data on the Four Online Sites

After examining and interpreting throughout the posts and comments on the four Facebook and Internet forums, this study finds that the major language used in these online sites’ posts and comments are in English as a communication language, and this may be due to users’ belief that English is more understandable for other bilingual and multilingual users, regardless of their supporting bilingualism/multilingualism language ideologies.

In the Facebook group Non-native speakers raising bilingual/multilingual (Chinese) children, Chinese pronunciation (Pinyin), and Chinese written language are always accompanying the English posts. Additionally, in this group, there are more illustrations about the elements representing Chinese heritage and culture (e.g., animals that have special meaning in Chinese, traditional holidays, emojis such as the national flag, etc.). Thus, on this site, while the majority language used in posts and comments is still English, Mandarin, including its orthographies, and heritage are being discussed more importantly and frequently when looking into the other three sites, because the parents in this Facebook group are mainly non-native Chinese speakers who are raising bilingual and multilingual Chinese children.

Across the four online forums, there are also French (such as languages used in greetings), Spanish, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, and some other languages besides English. Spanish is more frequently discussed in the users’ posts.

Therefore, English is the most frequently used as the platform’s communication language, and other languages are also used depending on the site’s features and the users’ demographics, such as the languages they are using. Though the language used in the posts and comments is mainly in English, language ideologies are obviously conveyed from parents’ narratives as supporting multiple languages, including Spanish, Chinese, French, and so on.

4.2. Topics of the Posts and Comments

In terms of the methods of analysis that I use, firstly I studied the major topics of the textual discourses, images, and videos in the four Facebook and Internet forums’ posts and comments; it is helpful to know what the users are using these Facebook groups and internet forum for and what they are discussing nowadays. This is also relevant to the language ideologies that the study will analyze. Ten major categories of the topics that the groups are discussing have been identified, as shown in

Table 1. Major discussion topics in the four online forums, with the number of cases and percentages, respectively.

	Discussion Topics Categories	Frequencies	Percentages
1	Sharing Resources (books, papers, online lectures, language courses, etc.)	59	32.96%
2	Language Transmission Strategies	44	24.58%
3	Miscellaneous/Advertisements (inquiry to fill a research survey, research participants recruitment advertisements, other miscellaneous posts)	35	19.55%
4	Seek/Sharing Opinions from the Environment	16	8.94%
5	Schooling	7	3.91%
6	Language Preference by the Child	6	3.35%
7	Language Development Milestones (babbling)	3	1.68%
8	Speech Delays	3	1.68%
9	Language Mixing	3	1.68%
10	Proficiency in Multiple Languages	3	1.68%

, with the number of cases and their percentages of the total data of each category.

As we can see from Table 1, the most frequently discussed topics in these online forums are sharing resources, including books, language courses, and storytelling workshops, which account for 32.96% of the total cases. The second frequently discussed topic is sharing or asking for language transmission strategies regarding teaching multiple languages for children (24.58%), followed by a miscellaneous/advertisements category which takes up 19.55%. Additionally, seeking or sharing personal opinions and thoughts about bilingual and multilingual upbringing and questions and concerns account for 8.94% of the total cases. This is followed by a topic of language preference by the child (account for 3.35%) which mainly talks about children’s choice of using certain languages in certain contexts, for example, during child–caregiver character playing, or responses to the caregiver. Some other relatively less frequently discussed topics in these four online forums include language development milestones such as the onset of babbling (1.68%), speech delays (1.68%), language mixing (1.68%), and proficiency in multiple languages (1.68%). This section of analysis on the most frequently discussed topics by parents is mainly used to help us find out what the most frequently discussed topics in the four online forums are, because the subsequent qualitative analysis on language ideologies only focuses on the posts and comments that come from the most discussed five topics found in this section.

4.3. Language Ideologies Expressed in the Language Uses

4.3.1. Recurrent Language Ideologies

As described above in Section 4.2, the top five topics categories are included to count and find the recurrent language ideologies. The most frequently discussed five topic categories (except miscellaneous, which does not contain meaningful information for critical discourse analysis on language ideologies) are sharing resources, language transmission strategies, seeking/sharing opinions from the environment, schooling, and language preference by the child. The number of posts and comments from these five topics accounted for 132 pertinent data points (posts and comments), which were selected to uncover the language ideologies expressed in the narratives of these users’ posts and comments.

Cru (2018) used a qualitative analysis aiming at examining the recurring themes of the comments and the debates that the YouTube video clips have prompted among the videos’ audience (Cru 2018). Based on this work, firstly I identified the main recurrent language ideological themes that prevail in the users’ posts and comments regarding their most interested topics when using these online groups, also referring to Lee and Su’s (2019) research methodology on studying recurrent language ideologies. Each post or comment may contain more than one language ideology. Additionally, only cases of language ideologies with more than one occurrence were included as recurrent language ideologies in the current study.

With these analyses, the occurrences of each main recurrent ideological theme are outlined in

Table 2. The occurrences of each recurrent ideological theme.

	Language Ideologies	Number of Cases
1.	Keeping languages separate (e.g., OPOL; Using different strategies when teaching different languages, such as using only one language for a while to see if that changes anything, then undergoing a six-month trial; Using the minority language at home approach; One language at home and a different one elsewhere; The time and place strategy; Developing a child’s different languages at different time points, e.g., their ml * needs to be strong before they get older and spend more and more time with their friends and at school)	25
2.	Pro-monolingual ideologies (e.g., When children reach school age and are exposed to monolingual ideologies that favor the dominant language (i.e., English))	8
3.	Supporting bilingualism/multilingualism	46
4.	Being bilingual is advantageous (e.g., Bilingualism is advantageous for cognitive ability; language is related to safety and identity—personal values)	17
5.	Teaching multiple languages together (e.g., Dual language immersion; reading in one language helps the process of learning to read in the other language)	10
6.	Maintaining heritage language and culture	25
7.	Subscribing to a model of subtractive bilingualism	3

* minority language.

, as follows:

4.3.2. Critical Discourse Analysis on Language Ideologies (Some Illustrative Posts and Comments)

This part is most central to critical discourse theory; ideologies in the Bakhtinian sense and dynamic narrative inquiry with values analysis indicate what is important to diverse expression as they are expressed in diverse genres, which is central to the rationale of the literature review section.

I focused on a qualitative critical discourse analysis (Daiute 2014) on the sample textual messages to probe into how the language ideologies are expressed in the users’ languages in the posts and comments to tackle some specific questions, as stated in the introduction and research questions. I mainly used the values analysis on these illustrative textual messages, as described in the theoretical orientations section. I have focused on the plain textual analysis of the posts and their comments and do not consider the multisemiotic nature of the forums in this analysis part, so as to focus on the language ideologies expressed through language uses and practices (Cru 2018).

Identify values:

Value 1: Being bilingual is advantageous.

Discourse 1: “Hi all! Have you ever heard people say that being bilingual makes you smarter?”.

This illustration demonstrates that the parent thinks being bilingual is beneficial and can make people smarter. This suggests the parent’s supportive attitudes and language ideology towards bilingualism.

Discourse 2: “I’m a mom of 2 and a French teacher/business owner. We’re Italian, but I went to Francophone schools all my life and believe that the more languages you speak, the more opportunities you will have in life! I’m happy and excited to be part of this multilingual family group and to contribute to it!”.

Discourse 2 shows the parent believes that being multilingual plays a positive role in children’s professional development, as they may have more opportunities on account of being multilingual. This illustration suggests the mom’s language ideology of additive bilingualism and supporting bilingualism/multilingualism.

Value 2: Bilingualism/multilingualism can cause problems in children’s language development.

Discourse 3: “My baby is 8 months old and he’s not babbling yet. When we mentioned that to our nurse at the 8–9 month check-up, she was surprised but said it could be due to the fact that we speak different languages at home”.

This message shows that the nurse who was consulted about the child’s language milestone (babbling) blamed the speech delay on the family speaking different languages at home. Such demonstrations indicated a negative attitude towards multiple languages, and a pro-monolingual language ideology that favors sticking to one language to enable children to have an earlier onset of babbling. It also demonstrates the nurse’s subscription to subtractive bilingualism because the nurse thinks bilingualism is not beneficial to the child’s language development, but rather has caused speech delays and important language development milestone problems.

Discourse 4: “From what I have read, there is a persistent stereotype among nurses, teachers, anyone whose field of training is not multiple language development, where they repeat pro-monolingual theories that were disproven decades ago...”.

Similarly, the above example also shows that some nurses and teachers have negative language ideologies regarding multilingualism. Thus, it is the user’s framing of the nurse’s comment that reveals her own ideologies about language acquisition and bilingualism. The user wants to express her opposing views to such pro-monolingual comments, which suggests the user’s preference for multilingualism.

Value 3: Keeping languages separate strategies are effective.

Discourse 5: “Kids are amazing! I am also using the OPOL method (Italian mother and Spanish daddy living in UK) and it works great! My lo is almost 3.5 and can now speak a very good Italian. She use to mix up a lot (mainly Italian and english) but now he is doing great...the trick?”.

Similarly, this illustration shows the parent’s idea of keeping languages separate when raising multilingual children. The parent indicated that using a strategy of keeping multiple languages separate, such as using the OPOL method, was very helpful to teach their kid multiple languages. The parent expressed that the child not only speaks Italian very well following the OPOL method, but also does not show language mixing now. These illustrations indicate the parent’s language ideologies that keeping language separate, such as using OPOL, is an effective method for multilingual upbringing and language education. The parent’s interpretation of the child’s successful language learning pattern by following the OPOL method shows the parental ideology that multiple languages need to be kept and taught separately to achieve a successful learning outcome. Also, the OPOL method may take some time to work, indicated in the parent’s expressions “she used to mix up a lot, but now he is doing great…”. This again supports a parental ideology of believing the effectiveness of keeping languages separate.

Value 4: It is important to notice when children start school.

When children reach school age, some parents convey local schools’ pro-monolingual ideologies, such as favoring children speaking English, while not supporting multilingual family’s minority and home languages. For example, the following narrative indicates this:

Discourse 6: “I want her to be able to read in ml as well but I wasn’t sure if I should wait for reading skills to be established in her ML before attempting to add ml. Our home ml is not supported in school so it will be down to me to build a foundation for her”.

Discourse 7: “It was a stressful process, unnecessarily. I’m glad they are out of the program. If there were other bilingual kids (peers) in the program with them or it was a real bilingual class, I would have loved it!”.

The above discourses suggest the parent’s language ideologies to support bilingualism and oppose monolingualism when the child starts school, and they experienced the school’s favor for monolingualism and use of the official language only.

Value 5: It is important to keep languages separate when teaching multiple languages.

Discourse 8: “My point is that every child is different. It depends on what they want: children who’re only interested in communicating with their parents, like my daughter, will only speak their parents’ language until they want to communicate with someone else. Children who are only interested in communicating with kids their age, will speak whatever language those friends speak, etc…”.

This discourse expresses the parent’s ideologies that it is important to keep languages separate when raising multilingual children. The parent indicates that kids communicate by using different languages when they are speaking with different interlocutors. For example, children use their heritage language when talking with their parents, while they may use other languages when communicating with their peers depending on the peers’ languages being spoken.

The following discourse shows the same parental language ideology that what languages are used depends on whom the children are speaking with and spending time with:

Discourse 9: “I should really learn French. Ideally, she would speak French with her siblings and the au pair until she starts school. Then she will speak French at school as well. What you say makes sense. My son had many friends that favoured speaking French, so this benefited him in that he would often play in French with them. They now speak English as well depending who they are playing with”.

Discourse 10: “It all depends on what you want to achieve: if you want your daughter to speak only English to you, then all English is the way to go. If you think she won’t have enough French exposure, then allowing some extra French with you may help. The beauty of all this is that you can always make a change and start doing things differently, and your kids will adapt to this change too”.

Then, this discourse illustrates that the parents hold the language ideologies that parental expectation and intervention play a role in how children develop their language competence, such as English only or bilingual English and French. Additionally, this parent believes the kids’ abilities to adjust to the parents’ requirements when they make transitions, such as from English only to bilingual English and French.

Value 6: Teach multiple languages together when raising multilingual children.

Discourse 11: “My younger son (age 7) is currently learning to read in both languages at the same time. I even mix our lessons, doing a few activities in ml and then a few activities in ML”.

Reading in one language helps the other languages:

Discourse 12: “Reading in one language truly helped her when learning how to read in both German and English. Her teacher tells me that she’s above her reading level in English, and I can tell you that’s not because we do English reading at home. She’s transferring skills from one language to another, so teaching/learning reading in the mls has definitely been a great idea”.

These discourses suggest that the parents think it is helpful to teach and develop children learning to read in multiple languages at the same time. They also believe that reading in one language helps reading in other languages as children can transfer the skills from one language to another, and thus teaching and learning to read in the minority languages will not diminish the dominant language, but will instead facilitate it.

Value 7: Making Transitions to Majority Language.

The following discourses convey parents’ experiences that when children get older, they may need to make some adjustments and find more balance among multiple languages. These also suggest parents’ language ideology of changing as subtractive bilingualism:

Discourse 13: “…… and her family are from South Africa, and their first language is Afrikaans. They speak it to each other whenever they are together, even at family nights and parties where there are people who don’t understand it. They do make an effort to switch to English when non Afrikaans speakers are around”.

Discourse 13 shows that children want to switch to English when non-heritage language speakers are around them, rather than ask others to understand their native language. This suggests the users’ transition to a subtractive bilingualism model and using English as the more official language that all can understand and communicate with.

Discourse 14: “As they get older, they spend more and more time with their friends. Their minority language needs to be strong before then. The majority language will get there eventually. But having them struggle a bit more with the majority language means working harder at school, so you have to find a balance”.

The above discourse also similarly expressed that the parents reckon that their minority language needs to be developed more proficiently before their children get older and when they will spend more and more time with their peers and also in schools where the majority language such as English really needs to be proficient and competent so that children can develop better at school. Such narratives suggest multilingual parents’ transitional language ideologies to a subtractive bilingualism mode and support developing children’s competent majority language (such as English) when children reach school age and when they spend an increasing amount of time with their peers, as an answer to research question 3.

5. Conclusions and Discussions

The current study analyzes the discussion topics on the four active Facebook and Internet forums regarding bilingual/multilingual upbringing and multiple language education. According to the study’s analysis, nowadays, the most frequently discussed topics on these four forums are sharing resources, including sharing books, storytelling workshop information, and language courses pertaining to language education for bilingual and multilingual families. Another main discussion topic is sharing or asking for language transmission strategies for teaching multiple languages.

Additionally, the study identifies several recurrent language ideologies on these online sites and in users’ posts/comments, including supporting bilingualism/multilingualism ideology, keeping languages separate, being bilingual/multilingual as advantageous, and maintaining heritage language and culture as outlined in Section 4.3.1. The supporting bilingualism/multilingualism ideology is the most frequently identified language ideology, such as maintaining bilingualism and multilingualism are beneficial to cognitive development, professional development, relationships and connections with others, which is consistent with Kostoulas and Motsiou’s (2022) study that found parents’ positive views about developing plurilingualism as expressed in online parental communities (Kostoulas and Motsiou 2022). The current study also finds that parents expressed keeping languages separate, such as following the OPOL method or using the minority language at home approach, while also finding that it is sometimes helpful to teach multiple languages together because learning to read in one language may support another language’s reading. These findings are also consistent with previous research that reported diverse language development and management practices for mixed-language families, such as using OPOL combined with other more flexible strategies (Kostoulas and Motsiou 2022).

Moreover, meticulous critical discourse analysis, which utilizes a fully interdisciplinary approach for studying texts (the posts and comments) within their contexts (van Leeuwen 2008), was used for an analysis on parental language ideologies when raising bilingual and multilingual children. Accompanying specific illustrative sample messages (discourses) from the online posts and comments, the study specifically demonstrates the recurrent language ideologies identified, and parents’ views underlying their narratives on their posts and comments as shown in the values analysis of language ideologies section in this paper. For instance, the analysis of parents’ online narratives portrays that some parents conveyed their language ideologies as supporting bilingualism/multilingualism as advantageous to their child’s cognitive and professional development and connections with others. Some parents hold the language ideologies of supportive for maintaining heritage language and culture, and some are maintaining and practicing multiple languages by encouraging their child’s use of different languages when speaking with different persons (e.g., encouraging their child to use a minority language with parents, and using a majority language like English with their peers and at school), while some parents are examined to have experienced some transitions from teaching multiple languages to focusing on developing their child’s majority language such as English. Additionally, the latter phenomena are especially typical when those bilingual or multilingual children reach school age and attend schools that favor monolingualism, when children’s minority languages have been developed in the earlier developmental phase, or when children have to use majority language such as English to communicate with their peers when they get older and spend more time with their friends, or to develop better in school settings.

The current study demonstrates the online forums’ roles and potential in providing bilingual and multilingual parents with platforms for social interactions and information sharing, and their roles in analyzing the underpinning parental language ideologies expressed in the genre of the users’ computer-mediated narratives. The study has implications for bilingual and multilingual families’ teaching and practicing multiple languages with their bilingual and multilingual children in various contexts, such as along the migration journey and living in a multilingual and multicultural society and family. The language ideologies analyses contribute to our understanding of family language strategies and family language planning including heritage language and minority and home language maintenance and education, and the development of the majority language like English to better connect with peers and perform better in schools for the next generations.

The limitations of this study are that the study is mainly based on the interpretation of the parents’ messages on the posts and comments, without interacting with the participants themselves to gain a better understanding of their ideologies in terms of multilingual child-rearing and language education. Moreover, the selections of the illustrative narratives for values analyses are based on the author’s own selective criteria, and may have some personal biases on the inclusion of the messages for data analysis. In addition, the selection of open-access Facebook groups and Internet forums in this study did not take into consideration that some groups are small and rife with administrators sharing resources. This will cause the counts of the topic categories to be biased, and further leads to the messages analyzed for language ideologies centering on posts and comments coming from certain forums.