Understanding networked family language policy: a study among Bengali immigrants in Australia

ABSTRACT

Family language policy (FLP) impacts the maintenance of heritage language(s) in the family domain, where parents play a crucial role in making language-related decisions for their children. Globalisation, immigration, the COVID-19 pandemic, and digital communication have all affected FLP. Studies are now calling for examining how dispersed transnational families incorporate digital practices as a part of their FLP, given the shift from the exclusive use of traditional face-to-face communication to the inclusion of digital communication media such as Skype and WhatsApp. This research examines the viability of utilising Spolsky’s tripartite framework to study the new concept of ‘networked FLP,’ a term coined by Curdt-Christiansen and Huang, which acknowledges dispersed families and digital communication. We examine data from ten Bengali immigrant families in Australia with dispersed senior family members living abroad. Our findings enrich the concept of networked FLP by highlighting the digital affordances that networked FLP provides to dispersed transnational families and the importance of socio-cultural and emotional factors when applying Spolsky's framework to FLP with digital media. We show that family bonding, maintaining heritage culture, and emotional connections are the primary motivations for digital communication, while language learning is secondary. Our study finds that it is essential to incorporate sociocultural and emotional factors when investigating networked FLP.

KEYWORDS:

• Family language policy
• digital communications
• migrants
• Bengali immigrants
• Australia
• networked family language policy

Introduction

The last few decades have seen significant increases in global migration and the formation of transnational, multilingual immigrant families (Blommaert, 2010; Lukose, 2007). Immigrant families who wish to maintain their ‘heritage language’ (HL) face challenges when raising children in an environment dominated by their host country's language (Wang & Dovchin, 2023). It is primarily the parents who take on the role of regulating the use of specific language(s), and this process is known as family language policy (FLP) (Caldas, 2012). FLP is one of the components of HL maintenance and has been found to either help or hinder the maintenance of linguistic and cultural heritage (Huang & Liao, 2024). The overall increase in global mobility has driven the importance of FLP in language policy research.

With the rise of global migration and transnationalism (Bose et al., 2023; Vertovec, 2001), dispersed or transnational immigrant families (Hirsch & Lee, 2018) are increasingly communicating through digital media (Madianou & Miller, 2013), leading to a re-examination of the conceptualisation of FLP. For instance, 170 million users a month connected for more than 100 min, on average, through Skype in 2011 (Lohr, 2011). The COVID-19 pandemic has also influenced the increasing use of digital communication by immigrant families to maintain contact with each other (Hatoss, 2023). Therefore, examining how transnational families, especially parents, view digital practices as part of their FLP is timely. The term ‘digital family’ is used by Taipale (2019) to describe families whose members are ‘living in one or more households who utilise at least basic level information and communication technologies and social media applications to stay connected and maintain a sense of unity’ (p. 11). These digital families function as extended families and can play an important role in HL exposure and practice, especially in interactions between children and senior members of their dispersed families. It is, therefore, essential to recognise the shift towards digitally-mediated language maintenance practices among transnational families. In this regard, it is important to clarify that we utilise the term ‘dispersed’ to indicate people not living in the same physical space and often even in a different country; thus, in this study, a ‘dispersed relative’ indicates someone residing outside Australia.

Re-examination of Spolsky’s framework

Previous FLP studies have conceptualised communication as face-to-face (f2f) interactions among family members living in the same physical location (Hollebeke et al., 2023); f2f communication is defined as ‘social communication carried out with other present individuals without any mediating technology’ (David et al., 1994, p. 35). Traditionally, FLP has been conceptualised through Spolsky’s (2004) tripartite framework, comprising the three components of ideology, management and practice (Said, 2021; Wang & Hamid, 2022).

Language ideology reveals family members’ perceptions or beliefs about particular languages (Curdt-Christiansen, 2018). While beliefs are considered to be personal and individual, ideologies are ‘larger, overarching shared value(s) of a given group’ (Hirsch & Kayam, p. 95). Studies often work with specific ethnolinguistic groups to understand their ideologies about language(s), for example, Curdt-Christiansen’s (2016) study on the language ideologies of eight migrant worker families in China. Language management refers to families’ efforts to maintain a language (Curdt-Christiansen, 2018). Language practices ‘are the acts of families in accordance with their ideologies’ (Bezcioglu-Goktolga & Yagmur, 2018, p. 45). While FLP, conceptualised in this way, was an appropriate means of investigating traditional f2f communication, the advent of dispersed families and digital communication requires a reexamination of Spolsky’s tripartite framework to harmonise it with these new conditions.

The increasing use of digital communication has led to the reexamination of FLP using digital media as ‘networked FLP’ (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020), a concept which emphasises ‘cross-boundary connectedness and its influence on FLP’ (p. 188). For instance, this cross-boundary connectedness could involve social media interactions that influence FLP through Skype or similar video telephonic communication media and have previously been defined as ‘digital HL communication practice’ (Bose et al., 2023, p. 12). Alternatively, it may involve using television, apps and websites to support HL maintenance (Bahhari, 2023; Veettil et al., 2021). This may not necessarily involve communication but does involve digital networks and has been termed ‘digital HL practice’ (Bose et al., 2023, p. 12). All of the above digital practices come under the rubric of networked FLP. Thus, the term ‘networked FLP’ also pertains to regular communications between immigrant family members through digital media that facilitate the maintenance of HL usage between children and dispersed family members, such as grandparents (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020; Gomashie, 2023), uncles, and aunts, that results in ‘cross-boundary connectedness, to being in a network and to being digitally networked’ (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020, p. 188).

In addition to recognising the increased significance of networked FLP, the relevance of Spolsky’s framework in this context needs to be examined. One of the key components of networked FLP is language ideology, which influences practices and management strategies (Spolsky, 2004). Spolsky (2004) sees language ideology as family members’ views and perceptions of their children’s language learning. In particular, the beliefs and values that family members assign to a specific language(s) lead them to make decisions on what language(s) to maintain and practice in the family (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020; Gu & Han, 2021). However, the decision-making process is also associated with other factors, such as family members’ emotions, culture, and identity needs (Canagarajah, 2013), along with the views and perceptions of their children's language(s) development (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009, 2012). According to Lanza and Gomes’s (2020) language socialisation theory, children are socialised to use specific language(s), and socialisation happens through applying that language when a child, acting as an active agent, interacts with another person. Therefore, when Spolsky’s (2004) tripartite FLP framework is considered in the context of language socialisation theory (Lanza, 2007; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011), other internal factors relating to emotion, identity, and culture (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020) all need to be considered, since they affect family members’ language-related decisions (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009, 2012). While these factors may be of relevance to both traditional and dispersed families, the fact that the only opportunity that dispersed families have for f2f FLP is during their occasional international home visits (Chowdhury & Rojas-Lizana, 2021), the salience of FLP through digital media and the importance of these factors become especially prominent. Thus, such internal factors, especially issues such as emotional bonding, are relevant to transnational digital families, and this has been noted historically by researchers outside the sociolinguistic and language policy domains; for example, see Baldassar (2007). However, there has been a dearth of research on factors not accounted for by Spolsky’s (2004) tripartite framework, such as emotion, identity and culture, in investigating digital communications for FLP.

While various factors such as emotions, identity, and culture need to be investigated, there has been limited research on FLP using digital media (Chowdhury & Rojas-Lizana, 2021; Gharibi & Mirvahedi, 2021; Nakamura, 2016) with a recent systematic review of the FLP literature finding that while 51% of studied instances of FLP-related communication took the form of traditional f2f, only 11% of reviewed studies incorporated an analysis of digital communications (Bose et al., 2023). Beyond the occasional mention of the use of digital communications, it is only recently that specific aspects of networked FLP have been researched and examined by a handful of researchers (Lexander, 2021; Palviainen, 2020, 2022; Palviainen & Kędra, 2020; Said, 2021; Wang & Hamid, 2022). For instance, the ideologies of Chinese parents and children in Australia have been examined with regard to the use of polymedia in FLP (Wang & Hamid, 2022). Said (2021) examined the role of technology in HL transmission and Palviainen (2022) researched language practices using the FaceTime app while Lexander (2021) investigated the utilisation of various media resources in Senegalese families exploring ‘how relationships, language choices and media affect each other’(p. 791). The current literature on networked FLP can nevertheless benefit from an enquiry that examines whether the FLP-related conceptual framework proposed by Spolsky (2004), as discussed earlier, can be considered in conjunction with factors such as emotions, identity and culture (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020). As discussed earlier, while these factors are relevant to f2f FLP, they become especially important in networked FLP because digital media are almost always the only means for such families to communicate. This is the key issue that this study will address, and to address this research gap, we propose the following research question:

How does networked family language policy explain immigrant families’ maintenance of their heritage language in a transnational and dispersed context?

We will answer this question by studying dispersed Bengali families’ FLP with regard to the use of digital resources.

Profile of the Bengali community in Australia

An examination of networked FLP requires the consideration of an immigrant group that is dispersed, transnational and multilingual in addition to exhibiting strong family ties with extended families, with senior family members such as grandparents being considered repositories of cultural and linguistic knowledge (Curdt-Christiansen, 2012; Ruby, 2012). Bengalis from India and Bangladesh are one such group (Chowdhury & Rojas-Lizana, 2021; Ghosh & Khan, 2018; Ruby, 2012; Voigt-Graf, 2005).

Bengali speakers are the sixth-largest linguistic group in the world, with a large diaspora of immigrants in various countries of the global north (Klaiman & Lahiri, 2018). The Bengali community in Australia consists of Bangladeshis (around 40,000) and Indian Bengalis (about 15,000), with the majority of Indian Bengalis being Hindus and the majority of Bangladeshis being Muslims (DHA, 2016a, 2016b). More than 60% of Bangladeshi immigrants and more than 55% of Indian immigrants have higher degrees compared with 20% of the Australian population (DHA, 2016a, 2016b). This may be an artefact of Australia’s immigration policy, which incentivises immigration by skilled individuals (Rajendran et al., 2020). Like some other ethnic groups (Said, 2021; Wang & Brown, 2011), traditionally, Bengalis lived in extended families (Ballard, 1982; Ruby, 2012) in which all family members (such as children, parents, grandparents, and aunts) lived together in the same physical space (Curdt-Christiansen, 2016; Xiaomei, 2017). However, due to the rise of global migration (Blommaert, 2010; Lukose, 2007), Bengali families are increasingly not physically located in one place and are often dispersed over national boundaries; in addition, they are increasingly multilingual and transnational (Hirsch & Lee, 2018). Hence, most Bengali immigrant families in Australia are nuclear families with only children and their parents living in one physical location (Rahman, 2009), separated from their dispersed family members. Bengalis in Australia are thus a suitable group for investigating networked FLP.

Methodology

This research adopts a multiple case study approach (Creswell & Poth, 2016) using semi-structured in-depth interviews. The multiple case study methodology is often used by FLP researchers to engage with similar research questions (Bezcioglu-Goktolga & Yagmur, 2018; Chowdhury & Rojas-Lizana, 2021) and is motivated by social constructivist theory, whereby the researchers, through interaction with the participants, derive meanings from the participants’ beliefs and views (Creswell & Poth, 2016). Indeed, a recent systematic review identified interviews and thematic analysis as the most commonly used approaches in FLP research (Bose et al., 2023). Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the relevant university (Approval Number: HC220021). This paper follows the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) reporting standards to ensure the trustworthiness and transparency of our research (Tong et al., 2007).

Participants

Ten families (six from Bangladesh and four from India) were recruited for this study, comprising a total of 20 (one Australian resident parent and one dispersed family member from each family). The parents were from the study’s target population of Bengali immigrant families from Bangladesh and India in Australia, with at least one parent self-identifying as being of Bengali heritage. Participants who satisfied the specific selection criteria (see the Appendix) were selected using convenience and snowball sampling approaches (Cohen et al., 2002; Fraenkel et al., 2012; Gill, 2020) whereby the participants were chosen from among the first author’s friendship group, social network members, and other contacts (Cohen et al., 2002). Participants were recruited through social media platforms and word of mouth. Potential participants who expressed interest in the study were contacted by email and/or phone. Two participants initially showed interest in the study but dropped out before being fully recruited – one without any valid reason, and the other after contracting COVID-19.

Data on family characteristics, education level, and country of origin from the baseline interviews are summarised in Table 1. The names used to identify participants are pseudonyms. The study group comprised five mothers, five fathers, six dispersed grandmothers, two dispersed grandfathers and two dispersed aunts. The family members were interviewed about 10 focal children in the 10 families. The participants were well educated, with one having a Bachelor’s degree, six parents having Master’s degrees, two being PhD students, and one being awarded a PhD (see Table 1 below). All were first-generation immigrants, and around half of the families had arrived in Australia more than a decade before the study; the remainder had arrived later. WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger accounted for more than half of all media used for digital communication with dispersed family members (Figure 1). Most families used digital technology to communicate with dispersed family members several times a day, and mobile phones were the most common mode of communication with dispersed family members.

Figure 1. Percentage of use instances for different digital media.

Table 1. Profiles of participating families (M = mother, F = father).

Family name	Senior dispersed family member	Senior family member (relationship with child)	Parent(s)	Child/children	Child gender: and age	Parent education level/ongoing	Country of origin
1. Akhtar	Moya	Grandmother (maternal)	Naf (M)	Fakir	Boy: 6 yrs.	Master’s Degree	Bangladesh
2. Chatterjee	Anu	Grandfather (maternal)	Sai (F)	Arati Bharati Ram	Girl: 16 yrs. Girl: 12 yrs. Boy: 1 yr.	Master’s Degree	India
3. Haque	Sah	Aunt (maternal)	Sab (M)	Nusrat	Girl: 9 yrs.	Master’s Degree	Bangladesh
4. Ali	Nan	Grandmother (paternal)	Far (M)	Nigar	Girl: 8 Years.	PhD student (Australian Univ.)	Bangladesh
5. Mishra	Billie	Grandmother (paternal)	Sap (F)	Riya	Girl: 13 yrs.	Bachelor’s Degree	India
6. Mustafa	Shakira	Grandmother (maternal)	Fal (F)	Tanzila Muhammad	Girl: 9 yrs. Boy: 6 yrs.	PhD degree (Australian Univ.)	Bangladesh
7. Rahman	Sima	Grandmother (maternal)	Sia (M)	Saa	Girl: 8 yrs.	Master’s degree	Bangladesh
8. Ray	Tas	Grandfather (paternal)	Ata (F) Bah (M)	Kalavati Meenakshi	Girl: 9 yrs. Girl: 6 yrs	Master’s Degree	India
9. Sen	Sira	Aunt (paternal)	Sur (M)	Saikat	Boy: 17 yrs.	Master’s Degree	India
10. Yaqub	Warah	Grandmother (paternal)	Kar (F)	Mainul Aaftab	Boy: 10 yrs. Boy: 6 yrs.	PhD student (Australian Univ.)	Bangladesh

Data collection procedures

Our primary data collection tools were a baseline interview followed by a semi-structured interview. To improve the trustworthiness of the semi-structured interview process, a pilot study was implemented with an Asian immigrant family with children within the same age group as the children in the main study, and the questions were modified accordingly. The questionnaires are provided in the Appendix. Spolsky’s (2004) tripartite framework was drawn on when devising the questions. There were no repeat interviews. The interviews were recorded, and field notes were taken. The duration of each interview varied, with the average being an hour but none lasting more than two hours. This conforms to the duration of such interviews in the relevant literature (Curdt-Christiansen & La Morgia, 2018; Smith-Christmas et al., 2019). For additional details on the interviews, see the Appendix. The participants were prompted with additional questions, if necessary for clarification, throughout each interview.

In 2022, the first author conducted online video or audio interviews in Bengali with 10 participants and in English with eight participants. Two further interviews were conducted face-to-face in the participants’ homes at their convenience. For the two face-to-face interviews, which were conducted in English, the interviewer (the first author) was accompanied by a university staff member according to the University’s home interview protocol. The first author, a native Bengali speaker who is also conversant in English and several other languages, had an insider (emic/subjective) perspective of the study group. The interviews conducted in Bengali were translated into English by the first author. To ensure the validity of the data, member checking of the transcripts (Creswell & Poth, 2016) was performed. The participants were satisfied with the transcripts and provided no additional feedback.

Data analysis

Thematic analysis (TA) was used to uncover the thematic patterns (Clarke & Braun, 2013) of the language ideologies and language management strategies employed by the participants when using digital communication media for HL maintenance. We utilised TA’s six-stage framework (Clarke & Braun, 2013; Creswell, 2002; Peel, 2020) to analyse the data. These stages include (1) familiarisation with the data; (2) developing the initial codes; (3) identifying, forming and describing themes; (4) reviewing and refining the codes and themes; (5) conducting an ongoing analysis with the help of clarification and by defining and naming themes; and (6) interpreting the data and writing the report (Creswell, 2002). The first author coded the data. Spolsky’s (2004) framework supported the derivation of themes from the data. The transcribed interview data were imported into NVivo qualitative analysis software (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2020) for analysis. As an example of the coding process, the three codes – (i) management of digital media, such as, ‘We log into the account and let them use our account and make conversation’ (Kar-F); (ii) management of heritage language, for instance, ‘I tell Saa to recite some Bengali rhymes to me’ (Sima-dG); and (iii) heritage culture management strategies, for example, ‘we used to discuss digitally what we’ve done in Eid or Bengali New Year or other Bengali cultural events’ (Nan-dG) were categorised under the theme ‘Language management strategies in networked FLP.’ Data saturation was reached after data from the seventh participant was coded. Inter-rater reliability of the themes was evaluated with a second coder’s help to increase the study’s trustworthiness (Clarke & Braun, 2013; McDonald et al., 2019). The percentage of agreement between the two coders was found to be 0.82, indicating excellent reliability. The names of the themes and some examples or quotes from the participants were provided to the second coder, who sometimes coded differently. Differences were reconciled by means of discussion, and consensus was obtained.

Findings

This section presents our findings on language beliefs, ideologies, language management strategies, language practices, and socio-cultural factors affecting FLP in networked FLP. Interview excerpts or quotes are identified using abbreviated pseudonyms (Wang et al., 2024). We discuss the various immigrant family language ideologies, management strategies and practices in networked FLP. Major themes are presented, with descriptions of diverse cases. We use the following relationship identifier abbreviations: M = mother, F = father, C = child, dG = dispersed grandparent, dA = dispersed aunt, and pseudonyms to indicate specific participants. For example, ‘Nan-dG’ means a dispersed grandparent named ‘Nan.’

Language ideologies in networked FLP

Language ideologies in networked FLP revolve around four major themes. First, families recognised the general importance of digital communication media, along with barriers to using them. The second theme relates to the ideologies of family members with regard to learning their heritage language through digital media. The third theme relates to family bonding and the ideologies associated with heritage language skills, and the fourth refers to factors related to maintaining heritage culture (HC), traditions, and identity.

Importance of digital communication media and barriers to their use

All families shared similar attitudes and beliefs with regard to the importance of digital media. One mother stated, ‘I’m just so grateful to social media. I think social media and technology companies are blessings for us’ (Sur-M). Five families confirmed that even a few years ago, written letters and expensive analogue phone calls were their only recourse for communicating with dispersed families. One mother’s opinion on such phone calls was: ‘Previously, we used the phone, but the phone is very costly. And there’s no option to visualise. There is only an audio call’ (Nan-dG). However, with advances in digital communication, the frequency, modality, and quality of calls have increased, which has ‘increased the frequency of interaction’ (Ata-F). In this regard, Said (2021) discussed how Skype has allowed ‘multiple situatedness’ (Lin et al., 2013), whereby these technologies enable families to embed themselves in each other’s lives. This affordance was especially appreciated during the COVID-19 pandemic when physical visits were impossible (Hatoss, 2023): ‘We had a very good time during the pandemic with the help of digital communication media’ (Anu-dG).

One mother (Sur-M) expressed a clear preference for digital communication as opposed to home visits (see Excerpt 1).

Excerpt 1

They are not likely to come here because they all either have jobs where they can’t come for long periods or they are not well enough to be able to take a 22- or 18-hour trip … So the only way then is occasional home visits.

The inability of senior dispersed members to visit Australia acts as a motivator of digital communication, which families may perceive to be a convenient substitute for home visits (Okita, 2002). Likewise, one grandmother expressed her positive opinion about the flexible, ‘anytime-anywhere’ (Watkins, 2009, p. 1) nature of digital communications: ‘During my son’s time, I had to wait for a long time for a phone call. But nowadays, I can text my grandchild anytime I want without being timebound. And I can also video call’ (Nan-dG). This point was also conveyed by one of the mothers (Sab-M) (see Excerpt 2).

Excerpt 2

We can share everything through video calls daily. It’s a very positive thing, especially when we are distant from family; we never feel distant … we cannot understand the change that happened from both sides after visiting Bangladesh about two and a half years after COVID because of the video calls.

Also, according to one mother, ‘We can talk anytime from Bangladesh. We don’t have to pay, nor do we have to wait for the time. I think the use of digital communication tools is an easy option’ (Nan-dG). The evidence thus indicates that families appreciate the anytime-anywhere nature of digital communications (Dholakia & Zwick, 2004).

However, families also expressed concerns regarding digital communication media and networked FLP. These reservations were about digital media in general and did not necessarily imply shortcomings in learning HL through such media. Thus, for instance, the father in one family pointed out issues with access to digital connectivity in the remote region where his dispersed family resided (Kar-F) (see Excerpt 3).

Excerpt 3

Digital communication is limited; for example, if the internet or these tools are not available or are infrequent in the village, but we have some relatives in the village. So, currently, they are limited to communicating with a few people in person.

Our findings further support the research by Bernhard (2021) and Revis (2021) that access to digital communication services among the senior dispersed Bengali family members who were either not tech-savvy or lived in poor rural areas of the global south is an issue. Also, aligning with Wang and Hamid’s (2022) study, some Bengali parents raised their concerns about potential security risks: ‘Good, but it must be monitored, it must be within limits … nowadays, with the digital facilities also come lots of security risks and hazards, and kids are going through those things’ (Sai-F).

Learning Heritage Language through Digital Media

Digital media can also be utilised to learn and maintain HL. As previously suggested, the parents appreciated that digital modes of communication serve the dual role of maintaining family bonds between dispersed senior family members (such as grandparents) and the children and the learning and maintenance of HL. An excerpt by one father (Kar-F) aptly expresses the importance of these modes of communication in HL maintenance (see Excerpt 4).

Excerpt 4

I appreciate the technology of digital communication tools; they allow the children to communicate with their grandparents and other family members from our home country. And our children are learning a lot through these conversations. They are learning new words, expressions, and emotions that they can share with each other.

The use of digital media to learn HL has been noted elsewhere, with other researchers reporting the use of digital media to learn HLs such as Finnish, English and Dutch in multilingual families (Palviainen, 2022) and Hungarian (Szecsi & Szilagyi, 2012).

Family Bonding and Heritage Language Skills

Emotional needs related to maintaining family bonds remain a crucial motivation for digital communications with dispersed family members (Said, 2021). To understand the importance that the participants placed on family bonding relative to learning Bengali language skills through digital communication, parents were asked to reflect on their motivations for using digital communication media and whether these leaned towards maintaining family bonds or learning HL skills. Most parents (n = 9) stated that their primary goal in using digital communication media was to strengthen family bonds between their children and senior dispersed family members. However, many (n = 6) parents from among the above nine mentioned that imparting HL skills to their children was a secondary reason for continuing and encouraging the use of digital communications (Hatoss, 2023); one father’s statement (Fal-F) makes this explicit (see Excerpt 5).

Excerpt 5

The main goal, of course, is family bonding for us. However, at the same time, Bengali language skills and speaking in the Bengali language can improve their language skills. So, the primary goal is to maintain the family bond, and the secondary goal is to maintain Bengali language skills.

Interestingly, Fal-F attempted to explicitly articulate the significance of maintaining emotional ties through digital media by labelling it as ‘the primary goal’ of communication with family members. The fact that parents consider family bonding the primary motivator is also supported by other research, which indicates that the primary reason for HL maintenance appears to be the desire for daily digital conversations between dispersed family members and children (Hatoss, 2023). Hatoss (2023) found that encouraging literacy in HL was secondary to the need for family bonding. However, the two goals have a substantial degree of overlap. Parents recognise that grandparents have difficulty conversing and thus maintaining family bonds with a monolingual English-speaking child, hence the need for the child to learn HL (Kwon, 2017).

In the opinion of several parents and grandparents, the children had positive feelings and attitudes towards digital HL communication sessions with the dispersed family members. For example, in the words of one grandmother, ‘She feels very bad if she can’t talk to me. She shares all her stories. She misses me a lot, and vice versa’ (Nan-dG). Also, according to a mother, ‘Nowadays, she feels the urge to communicate in Bengali. She talks in Bengali with various distant family members, such as her grandparents, uncles and aunts, and cousins’ (Sab-M). Children’s positive anticipation of HL communication sessions with dispersed grandparents has also been reported by Said (2021), who found that children named their grandma’s storytelling sessions ‘Grandma-TV’ (p. 755). These examples further highlight the importance of emotional factors related to family bonding in influencing digital communication practice between children and dispersed family members, with the motivation of maintaining HL literacy being a secondary driver of such practices.

Factors related to maintaining heritage culture

Factors related to maintaining HC have been identified in the literature as motivators of digital HL communication practice (Hatoss, 2023). Almost all family members (n = 10) in this study believed that maintaining HC through digital media was necessary for their children. Excerpt 6 from an interview with a father (Ata-F) is as follows.

Excerpt 6

Interviewer:

Is it for your identity, or do you think, like identity or culture, is important to you while maintaining your heritage language?

ATA:

Well, the cultural identity, yes. That is what seems most important.

Interviewer:

Like that is essential for your children, you think?

ATA:

Yeah, language is one of the parts of cultural identity, just like food or clothes. You think, broadly, that this is something I'm going to pass on.

Some members of the participant families integrated interactions in Bengali into their cultural and religious practices, as an interview with a grandmother (Sab-dG) indicates, and these practices were considered important for maintaining their Bengali-Muslim identity (see Excerpt 7).

Excerpt 7

Digital tools play a positive role in maintaining identity and culture. For example, they (family members in Bangladesh) share something during Ramadan, and Nusrat (pseudonym) knows the special day in Bangladesh, which is a public holiday for Ramadan in Bangladesh.

Curdt-Christiansen and Huang (2020) assert that families may consider identity factors, or ‘most significant cultural and ethnic features reflecting family roots and heritage’ (p. 177), essential and that these factors may reflect cultural practices and social norms. These factors motivate digital HL communication practices and affect ideologies related to HL maintenance.

Language management strategies in networked FLP

Just as traditional FLP entails some degree of management, networked FLP also requires management of how HL is practised through digital media, along with management of the digital media itself. In this regard, Sun et al. (2022) describe four styles of parental mediation strategies related to managing digital media – restriction, supervision, instruction, and co-use of digital resources. While parents appear to mediate using all four styles, with less instruction when using digital media, dispersed senior family members tend to rely on instruction and co-use with some supervision. The various strategies the participating families used to manage their children’s HL and HC practices through digital media are discussed below. Given the salience of HC in HL learning through digital media (Ferguson et al., 2016), we have identified separate HC-related themes in HL management and practice.

Management of digital media

The participating parents considered it essential to regulate and manage (or restrict and supervise) their children’s use of digital media in general. The participating parents with post-graduate degrees were primarily concerned with the addictiveness and security risks associated with their children’s use of digital communication tools. Children were generally not allowed to initiate digital sessions with dispersed relatives on their own. Participating parents considered it essential to cautiously monitor their children’s use of digital communication media, as one father’s statement (Kar-F) makes clear (see Excerpt 8).

Excerpt 8

I prefer to use our account, and we let them use it and make conversation … in the evening, I try to help them learn this language or discuss it through digital conversation with the grandparents. So usually, sometimes, they, by themselves, say, ‘Please call my grandmother and grandfather. I would like to talk.’ Sometimes they say it, but usually, I decide when they should speak to their grandparents.’

One mother (Far-M) explained how she handled her children’s use of digital media by using a digital app called ‘Facebook Messenger Kids’ (a child-safe version of Facebook Messenger) (see Excerpt 9).

Excerpt 9

I'm not allowing her to use digital media that much. She needs to get my permission because I think she's still very young. All my friends’ kids have an account, so it’s under my account. So, there’s a small group of few of them; they are very good friends. Sometimes, they chat and send Eid wishes.

These parents pursued strategies that echo Szecsi and Szilagyi’s (2012) argument that parents’ selection and management of appropriate media resources is necessary for the optimal use of digital media, and it is not unusual for parents to strictly manage children’s digital media use (Martin et al., 2021).

Management of heritage language

The participating families were aware of the need to manage HL use during digital conversations. The anytime-anywhere nature of digital communications also allows dispersed relatives to contribute to this management. Thus, while the grandparents instructed the children’s parents not to use English at home with the children, the parents, especially the mothers, also directed the grandparents to use only Bengali when communicating digitally with the children to support the children’s HL and HC learning. Some families (n = 5, 50%) followed a ‘pretends not to understand’ (Wilson, 2020, p. 66) strategy. Thus, one grandmother explained to her grandchildren, ‘I can’t understand English. If you don’t speak in Bengali, then I can’t understand what you’re saying’ (Nan-dG), and one mother described how she managed her child’s communication by saying ‘Sometimes she used English to talk to her grandparents. Then we asked her to please translate this, even though we understood what she said, because the other side may not understand it well’ (Sia-M).

Occasionally, networked management may be complex because of the unique nature of a child’s personality. Thus, for instance, one mother expressed frustration with her child’s shy nature and difficulty managing her child’s communication with dispersed relatives despite understanding the necessity of digital communication in HL (Sur-M) (see Excerpt 10).

Excerpt 10

It’s more about us getting to him to talk. So, whenever he’s free to talk, we include him, which happens to be around once a month or so. He looks at them shyly and says, ‘Bhālō āchi’ [I am fine] and runs away from the media.

Thus, on occasion, no matter how easy to use or indispensable digital communications are, it may be impossible for parents to manage their children’s HL use over such media; this reflects Moring et al.’s (2011) assertion that the affordances of digital media should not be overemphasised.

The families applied various other HL management strategies when using digital communication media. They generally encouraged the children to frequently communicate in HL through digital communication media (n = 10, 100%), encouraged them to watch Bengali movies or reality shows on television (n = 3, 30%) and quizzed the children on the Bengali meanings of certain English words (n = 7, 70%). Other strategies involved highlighting the works of Bengali literary figures, thus inspiring the child to read and write about Bengali literature (n = 3, 30%), reading story books and poems in Bengali and teaching them Bengali songs digitally (n = 5, 50%).

Heritage culture management strategies

The families employed various digital management strategies to manage their children’s HC. While these strategies may appear to manage cultural practices, they also facilitate the management of the children’s perception of, interest in and involvement with Bengali as an HL and Bengali cultural activities in general. These strategies included exchanging greetings at religious events, such as Eid-ul-Fitr wishes among Bengali Muslim families and Śubha bijaẏā wishes among Bengali Hindu families, or Bengali New Year wishes among Bengali families in general (N = 8, 80%), and the exchange of Bengali-culture-themed videos between the children in Australia and dispersed family members in India and Bangladesh (n = 7, 70%). According to one mother, ‘We cook pāntā-iliśa [boiled and fermented rice with fried hilsa fish] during Bengali New Year, decorate our table with foods, wear dresses, and make a video call, and show them’ (Sab-M).

Other strategies included sharing photos of various family members on Facebook to help the children feel more connected with dispersed family members (n = 2, 20%), Hindu grandparents live-streaming idols of Hindu goddesses such as Kālī, Durgā, Sarasbatī, Lakṣmī, or streaming videos of Ālapōnā [patterns or symbols drawn on floors with rice flour in Hindu religious ceremonies] through WhatsApp (n = 4, 40%). Grandparents showed children paintings made by their parents in childhood through a digital app (n = 3, 30%). In one instance, a grandmother used digital media to encourage her grandchild in Australia to dance to a Bengali song during the ‘Harmony Day’ programme in their school. One grandmother encouraged her grandchild thus: ‘Others also can’t dance well. If they can dance, you can also dance’ (Sima-dG). Note that almost all of the above strategies involve leveraging the anytime-anywhere nature of multimodal digital communications with a senior dispersed family member and would have been difficult or even impossible using a traditional f2f medium since physical f2f visits by dispersed grandparents and other dispersed family members to children and vice-versa are few and far between.

Language practices in networked FLP

Networked language practices in the examined families can be categorised into three themes: HL practices through digital media, cultural practices in HL through digital media, and other digital media to practice HL.

Heritage language practices through digital media

While there may be many similarities between digital and traditional f2f conversations, the ability to maintain continuous contact between dispersed family members and children is a unique affordance provided by digital media. This digital affordance allows the learning process to continue without interruption. An instance of language practice between a six-year-old child (Saa-C) and her grandmother (Sima-dG), where the child described her experiences after a day trip in Australia in Bengali, is as follows: ‘Ē'i pāhāṛa, ē'i pāni, ē'i jharṇā āchē, dēkhō kata Sundara. Puṣkariṇīte gōsala karabō’ [‘This mountain, this water, this fountain, look how beautiful it is. I will bathe in pushkorini’], where pushkorini means ‘lake.’ Not only did the child provide a complex description of her trip, but she, instead of utilising the standard Bengali word for the lake (pukura), employed a Bengali word used in literature and originating from Sanskrit, pushkorini, which is unusual for someone her age (pushkorini in Sanskrit is equivalent to pukur in Bengali; both words mean ‘lake’). Sometimes, HL practice involving complex vocabulary may be actively recognised and encouraged. For example, the grandmother (Sima-dG) speaking about her six-year-old grandchild says: ‘She learnt the Bengali word abishkar (“discovery”) and made use of it during our digital conversation.’ Excerpt 11 shows a digital conversation between this dispersed grandmother (Sima-dG) and her grandchild (Saa-C) through the Facebook Messenger app.

Excerpt 11

Saa-C:

Āmi anēka cintābhābanā karē ēkaṭā jinisa ābiṣkāra karēchi (Bengali) [After much thought, I discovered one thing].

Sima-dG:

Ki ābiṣkāra karēcho? (Bengali) [What have you discovered?]

Saa-C:

Yē tumi śōẏāra samaẏa gāna śōnō (Bengali) [That you listen to music every day while sleeping]

Sima-dG:

Iṭā tōmāra ābiṣkārēra jinisa halō? (Bengali) [Is this your invention?]

Saa-C:

Hyām̐, ēkaṭu ābiskhāra karēchi tōmāra ō'i jinisaṭā (Bengali) [Yeah, just discovered that thing of yours]

The above instances of communication in which two people communicate with each other from different times and spaces have been made possible through digital video telephony services such as Skype, Facetime, and Facebook Messenger and are all associated with multiple situatedness (Lin et al., 2013; Martín-Bylund & Stenliden, 2022). The grandmother Sima-dG concluded the conversation partially transcribed in Excerpt 11 with the following statement, as a motivation for Bengali transmission and conversation: ‘Āmāra janmabhūmi, āmāra ātmīẏa-sbajana, bānlāra aitihya, bhāṣā’ (‘My homeland, my relatives, Bengali heritage, and language’). Such digital language practices were motivated by the HL ideologies (Bonacina-Pugh, 2012) embedded among senior dispersed family members, who digitally or otherwise sought to transfer various aspects of Bengali culture to the younger generation, thereby ultimately shaping networked FLP.

Seven families (n = 7, 70%) reported that their children switched between Bengali and English when conversing digitally. The reason given by the parents for their children’s code-switching was their inability to continue the conversation entirely in Bengali; one parent stated that: ‘They cannot find Bengali words’ (Kar-F). Instances of such switching are common during digital conversations and have been reported by other researchers (Lanza, 2004).

Cultural practices in heritage language through digital media

The participants identified a number of cultural practices in HL through digital media, with 16 of the 20 participants stating that their families employed various HC practices when using HL through digital media. Some of these practices involved the child (on their own) or their parents sending video clips of song and dance performances in HL to dispersed family members (n = 10, 100%), the child singing a full Bengali song to their grandparents (n = 4, 40%), the child sharing their HC related artwork with dispersed family members (n = 5, 50%), exchanging greetings during Bengali cultural events such as Bengali New Year, and sending photographs of new dresses worn on those special days (n = 6, 60%). Cultural practices in HL through digital media can be seen in the following grandmother-grandchild conversation: ‘During Bengali New Year, Independence Day, and Eid, I send traditional Bengali dresses from Bangladesh to Australia. Fakir-C (pseudonym) sends me pictures of him wearing those dresses digitally’ (Moya-dG). The utilisation of cultural or religious practices to motivate HL learning has been noted by other researchers (Bahhari, 2023; Kwon, 2017), with digital media offering affordances for such practices on a regular, anytime-anywhere basis.

Other digital media to practice heritage language

Children’s HL practice is not confined to digital communication media but extends to digital media such as television or streaming video, which do not involve communication. Most children in the participating families (n = 7, 70%) watched Bengali television programmes, such as dramas, movies, and reality shows, that were relevant to them; their parents managed this activity. Some families (n = 4, 40%) watched Bengali programmes, such as dramas, on YouTube. A few families mentioned that their children used digital apps to practice HL at home, for example, by reading digital copies of Bengali books, communicating with Bengali friends through Facebook Messenger Kids, using Google Translate to translate into Bengali the meanings of certain English words, and practising Bengali writing through an iPad app. While these media do not involve communication, they remain an important means of practising HL through digital media.

Discussion and conclusion

We begin this discussion with the key contributions of our study followed by a discussion of the significance of our study in the context of existing research. We follow this with a broader discussion of our findings, followed by a conclusion.

This study enriches FLP research by exploring networked FLP (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020) in the context of the changes and affordances that digital communications have brought to dispersed families. It explores the feasibility of using Spolsky’s (2004) framework to examine networked FLP, finding a need to account for the emotional, socio-cultural and identity factors. Maintaining family bonds – the emotional ties that bind dispersed families together – and the need to maintain religious and cultural identities were the most potent motivators of HL communication using digital media. The study found that the affordances of digital communication media, such as flexibility, regularity of use, and general ease of use, mean that such media are a sufficient alternative to traditional f2f communication in situations, for instance, where family members are unable to travel. Conversely, security risks associated with children’s digital media use and accessibility issues were identified as key barriers. Finally, management strategies differed between senior dispersed family members and parents, with the former being more concerned with managing HL practice and the latter focussing on managing digital media.

A key finding from this study is the role of emotional factors in networked FLP. Emotional factors that lead to family bonding have been recognised in the literature as a potent motivator for digital communications with dispersed families. Thus, in a study of 2,092 people during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, Brown and Greenfield (2021) found that using digital communication media was significantly associated with positive emotions and well-being. Indeed, Alinejad (2021) has coined the term ‘techno-emotional mediation of care’ (p. 446) to describe the transmission of emotions and care over digital communication media. King-O'Rian (2015) has noted that the always-on nature of digital video telephony tools like Skype has allowed emotional streaming, whereby emotions are exchanged in an ongoing and continuous manner. This agrees with the findings from our study that family bonding and the associated emotions were the primary motivators for digital communications, with the need to impart HL skills through digital communication being considered a secondary motivator.

Another important factor motivating digital communications identified in this study is the need to maintain family culture, traditions, and identities among immigrants. Thus, in a study among Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands, Bezcioglu-Goktolga and Yagmur (2018) found that maintaining Turkish identity is a key motivator for HL maintenance. Similarly, Bahhari (2023) describes the importance of maintaining a religious identity as a key motivator for Arabic-related HL practices among sojourning families in Australia. Our research found that culture and identity maintenance are strong motivating factors in networked FLP. The two religious groups (Hindu Bengalis and Muslim Bengalis) involved in our study were interested in maintaining their ethnoreligious identity with the help of their HL. Also, uniquely, our inclusion of dispersed senior family members helped demonstrate the salience of HL use in culture-related activities in digital communications between dispersed senior family members and children. Thus, besides the usual conversations over Skype or Facetime, exchanging HC-relevant digital images, videos of children performing in cultural events and video greetings related to cultural festivals and events were common.

In calling attention to the importance of factors such as emotions, culture, and identity in networked FLP, our research supports the utilisation of a more dynamic model of FLP as introduced by Curdt-Christiansen and Huang (2020) when studying networked FLP. Thus, various factors affecting networked FLP must be highlighted.

Previous studies have mentioned potential overuse by children and security risks as possible demotivators for the use of digital communication media (Said, 2021; Wang & Hamid, 2022). The same concerns regarding children’s inappropriate use of digital media were noted among the Bengali parents participating in our study. Nevertheless, the affordances provided by digital media in which parents, children and dispersed relatives exchange conversations and emotions serve as a digital insider space within which such exchanges can occur safely and in privacy. In addition, similar to findings by Bernhard (2021) and Revis (2021), this study found issues with access to digital communication services in the rural global south to be a potential demotivator, with limited digital network connectivity in remote areas of Bangladesh and India. Despite shortcomings, networked FLP through digital media provides immigrant families and dispersed family members easy access to each other’s lives (Francisco, 2015) at a scale that is not realisable in traditional f2f FLP. The COVID-19 pandemic magnified the importance of networked FLP, as frequent lockdowns forced many immigrant families to spend more time at home, cutting off international travel and increasing isolation, motivating regular digital communications between children and dispersed family members (Hatoss, 2023).

Regarding management strategies in networked FLP, this study echoes Szecsi and Szilagyi’s (2012) claim that it is necessary to select and manage appropriate digital media resources for optimal use by children. Our study highlights the various parental management strategies used to control children’s digital media use; it also uncovers the differences between parents and dispersed family members, with dispersed family members being more concerned with actual language management than the parental strategy of digital gatekeeping and management of digital resources. While parents were more concerned with controlling and managing aspects of their children’s digital media use, senior dispersed family members were more likely to play a significant role in HL language and culture management. While parents occasionally played a supportive/monitoring management role, for example, by asking children to speak in HL when code-switching, dispersed family members were more likely to use complex management strategies such as ‘pretends not to understand’ (Wilson, 2020, p. 66).

With regard to HL communication practices in networked FLP, researchers have noted that digital communication allows the streaming of emotions and multiple situatedness (Lin et al., 2013; Martín-Bylund & Stenliden, 2022), thus permitting far-flung dispersed families to stream right into each other’s daily activities. This underscores the anytime-anywhere convenience of networked FLP that we highlight in this research. Previous studies have provided descriptions of the various digital practices around networked FLP utilising media such as WhatsApp, Skype and Facetime (Palviainen, 2020; Said, 2021; Wang & Dovchin, 2023). These studies have noted the multimodal nature of such communications, with the exchange of text, images, and ubiquitous video telephony conversations. To summarise, while previous researchers have highlighted various instances of digital communication in FLP, which we also provide examples of, our study argues that such practices are best explained by looking beyond Spolsky’s tripartite framework and incorporating emotional and other factors as proposed in models such as by Curdt-Christiansen and Huang (2020).

Limitations and implications for future research

The study has two limitations. The first is that the research participants, Bengali-speaking immigrants in Australia, held relatively high socioeconomic positions, with most being postgraduates. While this group may not represent the broader immigrant population, two facts need to be considered. First, this qualitative study aims for the accuracy and transparency of participant voice representation rather than representativeness. Second, this socioeconomic status is an artefact of Australia’s migration policy, which has resulted in a highly educated migrant population (Rajendran et al., 2020). Future studies could potentially expand this research by considering more disadvantaged immigrant groups.

A second limitation is that we relied on interviews rather than naturalistic data (Guardado, 2013) to investigate the participants’ language practices when using multimodal digital communications through media such as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger. An investigation of the semiotic resources that comprise language practices through digital media was not within the scope of this paper. Exploring these resources could help further analyse, for instance, the role of sociocultural, emotional and other factors in influencing multimodal language practice in networked FLP.

To summarise, future research could aim to provide a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of networked FLP among migrant families, explore the children’s viewpoints on networked FLP, investigate the importance of networked FLP among other migrant families, and focus on digital communication practices through multimodal digital communication media, for example by analysing HL text and visual messages sent through digital media such as WhatsApp and Skype.

To conclude, this study is informed by the emerging concept of networked FLP, proposed by Curdt-Christiansen and Huang (2020) that future researchers could perhaps abbreviate as ‘nFLP.’ The findings highlight the affordances provided by digital communication media to dispersed transnational families who are unable to travel and the importance of socio-cultural and emotional factors in networked FLP using digital communication media when exploring FLP using Spolsky’s (2004) framework. The study indicates that the strongest motivation for digital communication with dispersed family members is emotional factors, such as family bonding, and that the motivation for maintaining HL was secondary. Another important motivator for digital communication is socio-cultural factors such as maintaining heritage culture. This study thus points to a need to look beyond Spolsky’s (2004) framework and into emotional and socio-cultural factors when examining networked FLP.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Department of Education, Australian Governement; NSW Department of Education and Training.

Notes on contributors

Priyanka Bose

Priyanka Bose is a PhD candidate at the School of Education, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Australia. An Australian government Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship and a prestigious Waratah scholarship from the New South Wales Department of Education support her PhD study on family language policy. Her research focuses on family language policy, heritage language maintenance among immigrant families, language practices through digital media, multimodality and systematic reviews.

Xuesong Gao

Xuesong Gao is a Professor of Language and Literacy Education in the School of Education, the University of New South Wales, Australia. His research interests include language learner autonomy, language education policy, and language teacher education.

Sue Starfield

Sue Starfeld is an Emeritus Professor in the School of Education, University of New South Wales. Her research and publications cover tertiary academic literacies; doctoral writing, writing for publication, postgraduate pedagogy, English for Specifc Purposes, identity in academic writing and access and equity in higher education.

Nirukshi Perera

Nirukshi Perera is a research fellow at Curtin University. She was the winner of the Australian Linguistic Society/Applied Linguistics Association of Australia Michael Clyne prize for Best Thesis on Immigrant Bilingualism and Language Contact and the joint winner of the Australian PhD Prize for Innovations in Linguistics. Her book titled “Negotiating Linguistic and Religious Diversity: A Tamil Hindu Temple in Australia” is published by Routledge.

Appendices

Appendix 1A: Selection criteria

Selection criteria were as follows: The parent(s) being interviewed, and the child/children should be living in the same physical household. The families consisted preferably of both parents or one parent if both parents were unavailable. The families needed to have at least one child of less than 18 years of age. The families needed to have senior dispersed or extended family members (such as grandparents) living abroad and with regular (at least once a week) digital communications using media, such as Skype or WhatsApp, with the child. We let the family self-identify who they believed would be an appropriate senior family member. This family member could be living anywhere in the world other than Australia.

Appendix 1B: Questionnaires

Baseline Questionnaire: Please circle your answers. Choose multiple options if required.

1.	What language(s) do you speak? Bengali English Other
2.	What do you consider to be your primary/main language (L1)? Bengali English Other
3.	Please select your highest level of education (completed or currently undergoing) High School TAFE (or equivalent, such as Diploma) Bachelor’s Degree Master’s degree PhD Other
4.	What is your current level of occupation? Employed for wages Self-employed Out of work and looking for work Out of work but not currently looking for work A homemaker A student Retired Unable to work
5.	If employed, what is your current occupation?
6.	When did you arrive in Australia? Less than a year ago 1–4 years ago 5–9 years ago more than 10 years ago
7.	Please select your gender Male Female Don’t want to specify
8.	What is your country of origin/ country of birth? Bangladesh India Australia Other
9.	Which language(s) do you use with your close family members?

Table

Children
Other family members:
Partner/Spouse:

10.	Which of the following devices do you use to connect to the internet? Computer/Laptop Mobile phone Other
11.	Please list the digital communication tools you most frequently use for conversation with your dispersed family members (Example: FaceTime, Skype, What’s App or others).
12.	How often do you use digital communication tools? Several times a day Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Never
13.	How many children do you have? 1 2 3 4 More than 4
14.	What is the age of your child or children?

Table

Age of the child	0–4	5–10	11–14	15–18	Above
Child 1
Child 2
Child 3
Child 4
Child 5 or more

15a.	What language(s) does your child use (minimal/ well/ very well)?

Table

Language	Language (Name)	Listening	Speaking	Reading	Writing
Language 1
Language 2
Language 3
Language 4

15b.	How often does your child use digital communication tools when talking to dispersed family members?

Table

	Several times a day	Daily	Weekly	Monthly	Yearly	Never
Child 1
Child 2
Child 3
Child 4
Child 5 or more

16.	Please list the digital communication tools your child most frequently uses for conversation with your dispersed family members (Example: FaceTime, Skype, What’s App, or others).

Semi-structured interview questions for parent(s)

Questions based on family language ideology/views:

1.	How do you decide what language(s) to use in your family and why?
2.	Who are the people who play an important role in a child’s language development? Why do you think they are important?

{Prompt Qs: Ask about Bengali if the parent speaks only English and other languages}

3.	Can you tell me what led you to make the decision to include Bengali in your child’s life? Why is it important to you?

{Prompt Qs.: Preserving or maintaining the Bengali identity or culture while living in Australia is essential for your children – Why? Or why not? Beliefs about using minority and majority languages in the immigration context}

4.	What do you know about raising a child bilingually? 5. What do you think are important issues with regard to maintaining your and your child’s language and identity in Australia? (Issues: positive/negative challenges you faced in the multicultural environment or with any other)
6.	What is your opinion about your children using digital communication tools to communicate with the senior dispersed family members? What role does it play in your child’s language and culture?

{Follow-up Qs.: Digital communication media use to learn Bengali literacy skills or to maintain family bonds between your children and the senior dispersed family members, or what is the general purpose of these talks between the child and the dispersed family member?}

Questions based on family language management and language practices:

7.	Can you describe how your child communicates with the senior dispersed family members?

{Follow-up Qs.: What media is used? How frequently? Do you decide how frequently the child communicates with the senior dispersed family members? What lang(s) are used? Who are the senior family members? Home visits or vice versa?}

8.	How do you manage and plan your child’s Bengali language at home and outside?

{Follow-up Qs.: the strategies – Do they go to community language school/additional schools? Find out all possible strategies: explicit/implicit. Do they go to special occasions/cultural events? {Prompt Qs.: Cultural maintenance activities. What type of cultural activities do you do?}

Concluding Questions:

9.	What advice would you give to other families who want to maintain the Bengali language through digital communication tools?
10.	Would you like to add anything that was not asked? Any comments?

Thank you!

Interviews for a senior dispersed family member (outside Australia)

Your relationship with the child: _____________________

Ideology-based questions:

1.	What is your opinion about the child’s maintenance of the Bengali language and culture in Australia?

(Follow-up Qs.: Importance of culture maintenance in Australia)

2.	What do you think about the use of digital communication tools when communicating with a child in Bengali? (Follow-up: Help/hindrance?)
3.	What is your opinion about helping the child learn Bengali during physical visits to the home country or vice-versa?

(Prompt: how it is different from using digital communication tools?)

4.	Special Question for art teacher: What is your opinion about teaching art through digital communication media to the child?

(Prompt: Do you think it helps or hinders the child’s learning of Bengali and if so how?)

Management & practices-based Questions:

1.	Can you describe how do you communicate with the family and child?

(Prompt: Language(s) you use; mode(s) use)

2.	Can you describe how you encourage the child to speak in Bengali?

(Prompt: Strategies you employ-implicit/explicit).

3.	Can you tell how you participate or encourage the family and the child to celebrate the Bengali cultural events in Australia?
4.	Special Question for art teacher: How do you manage the child’s art learning through digital communication media?

(Prompt: Do you have any special issues that you want to talk about? For instance, communication difficulties with the child?).

Concluding Questions:

7.	Would you like to add anything that was not asked? Any other comments you want to add?

Thank you!

Appendix 1C: Additional interview details

Based on the participant’s choice of language, they were either interviewed in English or Bengali. Regarding the senior dispersed family member interview, each family was asked to identify one significant dispersed family member with whom the child conversed digitally and who would be willing to be interviewed online. All senior family member interviews were in Bengali since this was the language of choice for the dispersed family members