Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Language socialization in Canadian Hispanic communities : ideologies and practices Guardado, José Martín 2008-04-03

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2008_spring_guardado_jose.pdf [ 3.28MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0066332.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0066332-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0066332-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0066332-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0066332-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0066332-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0066332-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0066332-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0066332.ris

Full Text

  LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION IN CANADIAN HISPANIC COMMUNITIES: IDEOLOGIES AND PRACTICES by JOSÉ MARTÍN GUARDADO Licenciado en Idioma Inglés, Universidad Francisco Gavidia, 2000 M.Ed., The University of British Columbia, 2001   A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Language and Literacy Education)     THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)    March 2008   © José Martín Guardado, 2008 ii  Abstract Recent scholarship has highlighted the importance of supporting home languages for linguistic-minority families in multilingual settings, as the family language is the means through which they can more successfully socialize their children into the beliefs, values, ideologies and practices surrounding their languages and cultures. Although there has been some research examining issues of Spanish acquisition, maintenance and loss in Canada, the language socialization ideologies and practices of Hispanic families have not yet been examined in this context. This ethnographic study investigated language socialization in immigrant families from ten Spanish-speaking countries residing in Greater Vancouver. Thirty-four families participated, three of which were selected for intensive case study in their homes and in three grassroots community groups. More specifically, the study examined the families’ desires and goals with respect to Spanish maintenance, the meanings they assigned to Spanish, and the processes through which they attempted to valorize Spanish with their children.  The study found that many families formed support groups in order to transmit language and culture to their children. A cross-case analysis revealed that the families further exerted their agency by strategically turning these spaces into “safe houses” to resist assimilation and into venues for the Spanish socialization of their children, which enabled them to also transmit cultural values, such as familism. The families conceptualized Spanish maintenance as an emotional connection to the parents’ selves and as a bridge between the parents’ past and the children’s future. It was also constructed as a key that opened doors, as a bridge for learning other languages, and as a passport to a cosmopolitan worldview. Detailed discourse analyses revealed how the families utilized explicit and implicit directives, recasts, and lectures to socialize children into Spanish language ideologies. These analyses also showed how children at times resisted the parents’ socialization practices, but other times displayed their nascent understanding of their parents’ language ideologies in their own use of cross-code self-repair.  The study offers unique insights into the complexity of L1 maintenance and the dynamics of language socialization in the lives of linguistic minorities and concludes with implications for policy, pedagogy and research. iii  Table of Contents  Abstract…………………………………………………………………………… ........... ii Table of Contents………………………………………………………………… ........... iii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………… ......... ix List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………. ............x Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………….......... xi Dedication………………………………………………………………………… ........ xiii  Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………… ...........1  1.0  Background………………………………………………………… ..........1 1.1  Statement of the Research Problem……………………………….. ...........2 1.2 Research Questions ……………………………………………….. ...........7 1.3 Significance of the Study………………………………………….. ...........7 1.4 Outline of the Dissertation…………………………………………. ........10  Chapter 2 SECOND LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION AND  L1 MAINTENANCE………………………………………………. ........12   2.1 Second Language Socialization: Emerging Conceptualizations…… ........12 2.1.1 A Multilayered View………………………………………………. ........13 2.1.2 Current Trends in Language Socialization………………………… ........15 2.1.3 Language Socialization in Multilingual Settings………………….. .........16 2.1.3.1 Language Socialization of Hispanics in Multilingual Settings……. .........16 2.2 Language Loss and Maintenance………………………………….. .........17 2.2.1 Forces against L1 Maintenance……………………………………. ........17 2.2.2 Key Factors in L1 Loss and Maintenance…………………………. .........18 2.2.2.1 Linguistic Ideologies………………………………………………. .........20 2.2.2.2 The Role of Schools……………………………………………….. .........22 2.2.2.3 Identity …………………………………………………………….. ........23 2.2.2.4 Intergenerational Communication and Family Cohesion…………. .........25 2.3 Hispanic Diversity…………………………………………………. ........26 2.4 Summary…………………………………………………………… ........27  Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:  THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF COMMUNICATION………………... ........29 3.0 Introduction……………………………………………………….. ..........29 3.1 Ethnography………………………………………………………. ..........30 3.1.1 The Ethnography of Communication……………………………… .........30 3.2 Access, Settings, and Participants………………………………… ..........33 3.2.1 Access ……………………………………………………………... ........33 3.2.2 Settings ……………………………………………………………. .........34 3.2.3 Participants………………………………………………………… .........34 3.3 The Fieldwork: Data Collection and Analysis Procedures……….. ..........38 iv  3.3.1 Phase I: Identifying Cases…………………………………………. .........38 3.3.1.1 Informed Consent and Assent……………………………………… ........38 3.3.1.2 Demographic Questionnaire……………………………………….. ........40 3.3.1.3 Interviews………………………………………………………….. .........40 3.3.1.4 Observations……………………………………………………….. ........41 3.3.1.5 Fieldnotes………………………………………………………….. .........41 3.3.1.6 Fieldwork Journal………………………………………………….. ........41 3.3.2 Phase IIA: Participant Observation………………………………… ........41 3.3.2.1 Data Collection in Homes…………………………………………. .........42 3.3.2.1.1 Audio and Video Recordings……………………………………… .........42 3.3.2.1.2 Interviews with Parents……………………………………………. .........43 3.3.2.1.3 Interviews with Children ………………………………………….. .........43 3.3.2.1.4 Parents’ Reflections……………………………………………….. .........43 3.3.2.1.5 Children’s Language Samples…………………………………….. .........44 3.3.2.2 Participant Observation in Grassroots Groups…………………….. .........44 3.3.3 Phase IIB: Data Collection with Additional Group Co-Participants. ........48 3.4 Data Analysis………………………………………………………. ........48 3.4.1 Thematic Analysis…………………………………………………. ........49 3.4.2 Discourse Analysis………………………………………………….........50 3.4.3 Cross-Case Analysis……………………………………………….. ........52 3.5 Trustworthiness and Rigour………………………………………. ..........52 3.6 Chapter Summary…………………………………………………. .........57  Chapter 4 FERNÁNDEZ-MARADIAGA FAMILY AND  EL GRUPO SCOUT VISTAS: FOCUS ON CITIZENSHIP…….. ..........58 4.0   Introduction……………………………………………………….. ..........58 4.1 Family Background……………………………………………….. ..........58 4.1.1 Language and Literacy Socialization: Ideologies and Practices…... .........59 4.1.2 Home / School Issues……………………………………………… .........62 4.1.3 The Struggle against Assimilation………………………………… .........64 4.1.4 Language, Identity and Cultural Awareness………………………. .........65 4.2 El Grupo Scout Vistas-BPSA…………………………………….. ..........68 4.2.1 Scouting History…………………………………………………… ........68 4.2.2 Brief History of El Grupo Scout Vistas-BPSA……………………. .........69 4.2.2.1 Filling a Need………………………………………………………. ........69 4.2.2.2 Contributing to Social Change……………………………………... ........71 4.2.2.3 Transmitting Language and Culture……………………………….. ........71 4.2.3 The Families………………………………………………………...........72 4.2.3.1 Motivation…………………………………………………………. .........72 4.2.4 Sections……………………………………………………………. .........73 4.2.4.1 Motto and Promise………………………………………………… .........74 4.2.4.2 Nutrias: Inteligente y Ocupado (Busy and Bright)………………… ........74 4.2.4.3 Lobatos: Siempre lo Mejor (Do your Best) ...............................................75 4.2.4.4 Explorers: ¡Siempre Listos! (Be Prepared!)………………………. .........75 4.2.5 Activities: Types, Routines and Settings………………………….. .........75 v  4.2.5.1 Overview of Activity Types………………………………………...........76 4.2.5.1.1 Speaking Spanish like a Boy Scout: Scout Activities and Patterns  of Communication .....................................................................................78 4.2.5.1.2 Promoting Scout Values: Learning the Promise…………………… ........78 4.2.5.1.3 Promoting Language: Spanish Language, Literacy and Values…… ........85 4.2.5.1.4 Promoting Culture Through Artifacts: Piñata, Zambomba  and Nacimiento……………………………………………………. .........91 4.2.5.1.5 Promoting Scout Skills: Night Hiking…………………………….. .........96 4.2.5.2 Activity Conclusion: La Orden del Día . …………………………. .........99 4.2.6 Parents’ Perceptions of Group: Attitudes and Benefits……………. ......102 4.3 Chapter Summary …………………………………………………. ......105  Chapter 5 RUEDAS-BLANCO FAMILY AND EL CENTRO DE CULTURA:  FOCUS ON GRAMMAR…………………………………………. .......107 5.0 Introduction………………………………………………………… ......107 5.1 Family Background……………………………………………….. ........107 5.1.1 Initial Language Attitudes…………………………………………........111 5.1.2 Factors Implicated in L1 Maintenance…………………………….. ......112 5.1.2.1 Motivations………………………………………………………… ......112 5.1.3 Home Language and Literacy Policies and Practices……………… ......114 5.1.4 The Role of School………………………………………………… ......117 5.1.5 Home Language and Literacy Socialization Strategies…………… .......119 5.2 El Centro de Cultura………………………………………………. .......121 5.2.1 The Families: Admission Criteria and Characteristics……………. .......121 5.2.1.1 Motives……………………………………………………………. .......123 5.2.2 Activities: Facilitation, Levels, and Types………………………… ......125 5.2.2.1 Nature of Activities: Literacy and Grammar-Translation…………. .......125 5.2.2.1.1 Mrs. Martínez’s Class…………………………………………….. ........126 5.2.2.1.2 Mrs. Pérez’s Class………………………………………………… ........130 5.2.2.1.3 Mrs. Nieve’s Class…………………………………………………. ......135 5.2.2.1.4 Mrs. Ibarra’s Class: Mother Goose Program………………………. ......141 5.2.3 Attitudes about the Activities……………………………………… .......141 5.2.3.1 Perceived Benefits………………………………………………… .......142 5.2.3.1.1 Language and Literacy……………………………………………. ........142 5.2.3.1.2 Social Relations…………………………………………………... ........144 5.2.3.1.3 Familism ………………………………………………………….. .......145 5.2.3.1.4 Identity……………………………………………………………. ........147 5.2.4 Group Challenges: Parental Involvement…………………………. .......148 5.3 Chapter Summary…………………………………………………. .......149  Chapter 6 AGUIRRE-RAMÍREZ FAMILY AND LA CASA AMISTAD:  FOCUS ON ARTS………………………………………………… .......151 6.0   Introduction……………………………………………………….. ........151 vi  6.1 Family Background……………………………………………….. ........151 6.1.1 Language Socialization Practices at Home………………………… ......154 6.1.1.1 Socializing Linguistic and Cultural Awareness……………………. ......156 6.1.2 Language and Cultural Maintenance: The Construction of L1……. ......158 6.1.3 Spanish Literacy…………………………………………………… .......159 6.1.4 Realistic Expectations……………………………………………… ......160 6.1.5 The Effect of the Mexico Trips on Home Language Socialization.. .......161 6.1.6 The Role of School in the Children’s Language Socialization……. .......166 6.2 La Casa Amistad…………………………………………………… ......168 6.2.1 Brief History………………………………………………………. .......168 6.2.2 The Families: Criteria and Characteristics ……………………….. ........170 6.2.3 Main Goals and Motivations……………………………………… ........172 6.2.4 Facilitating Activities……………………………………………… .......173 6.2.5 Weekly Routine……………………………………………………. ......175 6.2.5.1 A Parent-run Activity: Restaurant…………………………………. ......176 6.2.5.2 A Teacher-run Activity……………………………………………. .......179 6.2.6 Beyond Language: Cultural Transmission………………………….......184 6.2.6.1 Familism…………………………………………………………… ......184 6.2.7 Children’s Attitudes and Practices………………………………… .......185 6.2.8 Perceived Participation Benefits: The Aguirre-Ramírez Family …. .......190 6.2.8.1 Social Relations……………………………………………………. ......191 6.2.8.2 Cultural and Linguistic Validation………………………………… .......192 6.2.8.3 Socializing Selves and Others……………………………………… ......192 6.2.9 Perceived Participation Benefits: Additional Group Co-Participants ......194 6.2.9.1 Identity and Cultural Awareness…………………………………… ......196 6.2.10 Challenges…………………………………………………………. .......197 6.2.10.1 Active Parental Involvement……………………………………… ........198 6.2.10.2 Tensions: Divided Needs and Visions…………………………….. .......199 6.2.10.3 Compromise……………………………………………………….. .......201 6.3 Chapter Summary…………………………………………………. .......202  Chapter 7 AIMS AND PROCESSES OF LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION:  A CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS ……………………………………. .......203 7.0   Introduction………………………………………………………… ......203 7.1 The Aims of Language Socialization………………………………. ......205 7.1.1 Resisting Assimilation: Creating Language and Cultural Spaces… ........206 7.1.1.1 Safe Houses……………………………………………………….. ........206 7.1.1.2 Linguistic and Cultural Validation………………………………… .......207 7.1.1.3 Social Relations…………………………………………………… .......209 7.1.1.4 Familism…………………………………………………………… ......210 7.1.2 The Construction of Spanish Maintenance………………………… ......212 7.1.2.1 Intergenerational Continuity……………………………………….. ......212 7.1.2.2 Fostering L1 Identity ……………………………………………….......213 7.1.2.3 Emotional Strength………………………………………………… ......214 7.1.2.4 Home Language is where the Heart is…………………………….. .......215 vii  7.1.2.5 Comfort Language…………………………………………………. ......216 7.1.2.6 Door Opening Metaphor…………………………………………… ......218 7.1.2.6.1 L1 Maintenance and Socioeconomic Mobility……………………. .......219 7.1.2.6.2 L1 Maintenance and the Promotion of Other Languages…………. .......220 7.1.2.7 Broader Vision of the World………………………………………. .......222 7.1.2.7.1 Nationalism, Transnationalism and Pan-ethnicity ……………….. ........223 7.1.2.7.2 Cosmopolitanism …………………………………………………. .......225 7.2 The Processes of Language Socialization………………………… ........227 7.2.1 Socializing Linguistic Ideologies………………………………….. .......227 7.2.1.1 Language Policies …………………………………………………. ......228 7.2.1.2 Directives: Explicit and Implicit…………………………………… ......229 7.2.1.3 Recasts…………………………………………………………….. .......231 7.2.1.4 Self-repairs………………………………………………………… .......234 7.2.1.5 Lectures……………………………………………………………. .......235 7.3 Chapter Summary………………………………………………… ........237  Chapter 8 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ………………………… ......238  8.0   Introduction……………………………………………………….. ........238 8.1 Summary of Findings and Discussion…………………………….. .......239 8.2 Known Issues in L1 Maintenance………………………………….. ......240 8.2.1 The Benefits of L1 Maintenance…………………………………..........240 8.2.2 The Dialectical Relationship between L1 Maintenance and Identity ......241 8.3 Expanding Notions of L1 Maintenance……………………………. ......241 8.3.1 Grassroots Groups as Surrogate Extended Families………………. .......242 8.3.2 Diasporic Familism and L1 Maintenance…………………………. .......243 8.3.3 The Complexity of L1 Maintenance Constructions……………….. .......244 8.3.3.1 L1 Maintenance and the Schooling of Children…………………… ......245 8.3.3.2 The Role of L1 Maintenance in the Development of Children’s  Syncretic Identities………………………………………………….......246 8.3.3.3 The Effect of Parents’ Educational Background and L2 Proficiency  on Children’s L1 Maintenance……………………………………. ........246 8.3.3.4 Linguistic Ideology Socialization, Accommodation, and Resistance ......247 8.3.3.5 Cosmopolitanism, L1 Maintenance and the Hegemony of English.. ......248 8.3.3.6 The Need to Reconsider the L1 Maintenance Construct………….. .......250 8.4 Implications………………………………………………………..........251 8.4.1 Policy………………………………………………………………. ......251 8.4.2 Pedagogy…………………………………………………………… ......253 8.4.3 Research…………………………………………………………… .......255 8.5 Scope of the Study………………………………………………… .......257 8.6 Researcher’s Reflexivity and Positionality……………………….. ........258 8.7 Concluding Remarks……………………………………………….. ......260  References…………………………………………………………………………. .......264 Appendix A Recruitment Notice …………………………………………………. .......291 Appendix B Certificate of Approval……………………………………………… ........292 viii  Appendix C Informed Consent and Assent Forms……………………………….. ........293 Appendix D Questionnaire for Parents-Phase I…………………………………… .......306 Appendix E Interview Questions………………………………………………….. .......307 Appendix F Children’s Language Samples……………………………………….. .......312 Appendix G Group Participation Interview Questions……………………………. .......322 Appendix H Transcription Conventions…………………………………………… ......323 Appendix I Rhetorical Moves……………………………………………………… ......325 Appendix J Quote Translations …………………………………………………… .......326  ix  List of Tables  Table 3.1 General Profile of Families………………………………………... .........35 Table 3.2  Summary of Participating Families……………………………….. .........37 Table 3.3 Summary of Ethnographic Record………………………………… .........46 Table 4.1 Fernández-Maradiaga Family Profile……………………………… ........59 Table 4.2 El Grupo Scout Vistas: Profile of Core Families………………….. .........72 Table 4.3 Levels of Scouts…………………………………………………… .........74 Table 4.4 Scout Routine……………………………………………………… .........76 Table 5.1 Ruedas-Blanco Family Profile…………………………………….. .......109 Table 5.2 El Centro de Cultura: Profile of Core Families……………………. ......122 Table 5.3 Age Levels ………………………………………………………… ......125 Table 5.4 Sample El Centro de Cultura Routine……………………………… ......126 Table 6.1 Aguirre-Ramírez Family Profile…………………………………… ......152 Table 6.2 La Casa Amistad: Profile of Core Families………………………. ........171 Table 6.3 La Casa Amistad: Sample Routine……………………………….. ........175             x  List of Figures  Figure 2.1 The Interaction of Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Factors  Affecting L1 Loss and Maintenance………………………………. .........19 Figure 3.1 Project Design……………………………………………………… ........39 Figure 3.2 Fieldwork Timeline………………………………………………… ........40 Figure 3.3 Data Analysis Processes…………………………………………… ........49 Figure 5.1 Patterns of Language use in the Ruedas-Blanco Family………….. .......117 Figure 6.1 Patterns of Language use in the Aguirre-Ramírez Family………… .......163 Figure 7.1  Summary of the Aims and Processes of Language Socialization…. .......205        xi  Acknowledgements   This project was made possible through the support of many people. First of all, I would like to thank the thirty-four families that participated in the study. Particularly, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the three focal families for allowing me to intrude in their lives. Several members of the Vancouver School Board offered their assistance during the participant recruitment stage. Particularly, I thank Catherine Eddy, Manager of the District Reception and Placement Centre, for arranging meetings with the multicultural workers and for other forms of support. I thank the Hispanic multicultural workers, Guillermina Bentzen, Miriam Maurer, and Mercedes Quirós, for their assistance in recruiting participating families. Likewise, I thank Hispanic radio announcers Eduardo Olivares, Leo Ramírez and Ramón Flores, for supporting the project with airtime.   I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my research committee members. I am greatly indebted to my supervisor, Dr. Patsy Duff, for her dedicated mentorship throughout the project and for offering her encouragement and wisdom. I thank her for having faith in me, which combined with her work ethic and high scholarly standards, pushed me to do more, and provided me with a solid model to which to aspire. At the same time, I thank Dr. Duff for being a warm and caring human being. Additionally, Dr. Margaret Early and Dr. Jim Anderson have been exceptionally supportive in all aspects of my graduate journey. I would like to thank all three of you for taking the time to think about the various steps of this project and for your timely and thoughtful suggestions.   Thanks also go to faculty members who have offered words of support and expertise at various times, such as Drs. Geoff Williams, Bonny Norton, Maureen Kendrick, Lee Gunderson, Monique Bournot-Trites, Carmen Medina and John Willinsky. Special mention goes to Dr. Steven Talmy who helped me refine my discourse analysis skills. I am also grateful to the LLED staff for their helpfulness in various aspects of this journey: Anne Eastham, Teresa O’Shea, Anne White and Laura Selander. I also thank Keith McPherson for being a great resource, colleague and friend.  My peers have also been a valuable source of support in many aspects and at various phases of the project, not only academically, but also personally. I would like to thank the members of the “Amigos” team, Sandra Zappa-Hollman and Jeremie Seror, for helping make the doctoral journey not a lonesome one. Additionally, Jeremie Seror and Lyndsay Moffat, my “peer debriefing” group, provided valuable insights through our regular meetings. Along with Dr. Steven Talmy, Lyndsay and Jeremie were also members of the (albeit limited) DAWG (Discourse Analysis Working Group) sessions, which inspired me during key moments of the discourse analysis. I would also like to thank Lynne McGivern for her assistance through phone conversations and other forms of support. As well, I am grateful for the supportive community of peers and friends at UBC: Jean Kim, Mi-Young Kim, Diane Potts, Ena Lee, Bill McMichael, Doug Fleming, Lei Hong, Reg D’Silva, Klara Abdi, Sheri Wenman, Jean Hamilton, and Bruce Cornwall.   I would like to thank all my family, particularly Ana Maria and Bill, Bety and George, Cristy and Gil, and Tito and Marina. You know the forms of support you have provided me. For xii  everything you have done, I thank you deeply. I thank my children, Martincito, Daniel and Christian, for their understanding when my time was limited. I thank Martincito for his assistance with the design of graphics when my computer skills fell short.  A mi Mamá, le agradezco infinitamente por haber sentado bases sólidas sobre las cuales construir mi vida, animándome y apoyándome en todos los aspectos imaginables para que yo realizara mis estudios y finalmente concluyera mi doctorado. Ella brindó todo tipo de apoyo y consuelo a la familia y durante mis estudios de post-grado me respaldó de manera increíble en todo momento y sentido y siempre fue infinitamente comprensiva cuando yo no podía compartir más tiempo con ella.  I thank Carolina Palacios for her unreserved support in all aspects of this journey. Our innumerable and endless conversations enriched my understanding and reflection on various aspects of my project and beyond.   I am thankful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for a generous three-year Doctoral Fellowship that supported this project. I would also like to acknowledge support from the following: the Faculty of Education Graduate Student Research Grant, the Joseph Katz Memorial Award for Multicultural Education, and various travel awards from UBC, The Canadian Modern Language Review, and the Association Internationale de la Linguistique Appliquée (AILA). Finally, I would like to acknowledge the various forms of support that the UBC-Ritsumeikan Academic Exchange Programme provided.  xiii           A mis hijos, Christian, Daniel y Martincito 1  Chapter 1  INTRODUCTION “I am my language. Until I can take pride in my language, I cannot take pride in myself” (Anzaldúa, 1987, p. 59). 1.0 Background Language is a central aspect of human life, culture and cultural and ethnic identity for most groups (Fishman, 1989, 1999; Jasso-Aguilar, 1999; Kramsch, 2008; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1999, 2000). It is central to shaping the worldview of cultures (Sherzer, 1989), the key repository of cultural values and meanings (Hall, 1997), and the primary means by which families socialize young children as members of a cultural community (Ochs, 1993, 1996; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2008; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a, 1986b). If language is essential to a wide range of human endeavours, fostering the family language becomes also a critical necessity for linguistic-minority families living in multilingual settings, as the family language is the means through which they can more successfully socialize their children into the beliefs, values, ideologies and practices surrounding their languages and cultures as well as into their conceptions of the world. This process of socialization also involves the shaping of children’s particular identities, drawing them to identify with a community of speakers (Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2008), and how these affiliations interact with the broader society. To investigate this process, this multi-site ethnography sought to analyze the language socialization of Hispanic families and their children in Metro Vancouver, Canada. The main focus of the project was on the maintenance of Spanish as a minority language in this English-speaking context.  First language (L1) loss and maintenance together form a field that had been largely neglected by applied linguists until the early 1980s (Merino, 1983; Oxford, 1982; Pan & Berko-Gleason, 1986; Wong Fillmore, 1991). However, in the last two decades, there has been an increased interest in investigating this area. The study, therefore, set out to examine language socialization objectives, processes and contextual factors in the language socialization of Spanish-speaking children in order to uncover key factors affecting their L1 loss and/or maintenance when making their home in this Canadian city.  The study is grounded in findings that substantiate work in this area. For instance, it has been found that L1 loss can disrupt family relations, often hampering immigrant parents’ 2  efforts in helping their children manage their new life (Wong Fillmore, 1991). Additionally, although previous studies have examined issues of Spanish maintenance and loss in Canada (Guardado, 2002), general educational issues with some focus on language maintenance (Pacini-Ketchabaw, Bernhard, & Freire, 2001), and linguistic examinations of Spanish (Cuza, 2001, 2004; M. F. Hoffman, 2004), the processes of language socialization of Spanish-speaking families have not been addressed in Canada before.  1.1 Statement of the Research Problem Still seen as an emergent area of study, a variety of processes are frequently investigated in connection with the terms language loss and maintenance. Several other terms are used to refer to language loss, such as language shift, language attrition, language forgetting, and language obsolescence (Fase, Jaspaert, & Kroon, 1992). There is an important distinction between the terms language loss, language attrition and language forgetting according to Weltens and Grendel (1993), but in this dissertation, the terms language attrition and language loss are used interchangeably to refer to “all types of decline of linguistic skills both in individuals and in speech communities” (de Bot & Weltens, 1995, p. 151). In the same fashion, the terms first language, home language, family language, heritage language, and mother tongue are also used interchangeably. The use of language maintenance in this dissertation assumes language development, and not just keeping an already-developed level of language ability. My interest in this research arises from my own experiences of socialization in a new language as a young adult and also as a parent raising children bilingually and trilingually (English, Spanish, and French) in an English-dominant context. Reading Wong Fillmore’s (1991) seminal article greatly increased my personal and academic awareness and understanding of this critical issue. In her study, she found that first language (L1) loss can be extremely disruptive of family relations, jeopardizing child / parent communication, and rendering parents and grandparents unable to help their children cope with their new life experiences.  Influenced by Wong Fillmore and others’ work, I sought to determine the causes of L1 loss and maintenance and also parents’ perceptions of their children’s L1 loss and maintenance (Guardado, 2002). Such questions had not been focused on with Hispanic families in Canada before. The study revealed that the two families with a lower 3  socioeconomic status (SES) and lower educational background had been less successful in L1 maintenance than the two of higher SES and higher educational background. This finding was contrary to that of Schecter and Bayley’s (1997) study of 40 families in California and Texas, which found the opposite to be true for some of their participants. In addition, the preliminary findings of my 2002 study suggested that the promotion of the L1 culture, identity and family relationships was an important reason for maintaining Spanish for the study participants. Furthermore, the type of encouragement (i.e., coercive vs. supportive discourse) that parents gave their children to speak the L1 could have a facilitating or a detrimental effect. The families also felt that L1 maintenance strengthened their children’s sense of self and promoted positive moral and mental development. Since Wong Fillmore’s (1991) publication, several important studies have focused on this topic in relation to a variety of languages and contexts (Aslinia, 2007; Bayley & Schecter, 2003; Chumak-Horbatsch, 1999; Coronel-Molina, 2007; Dagenais & Berron, 2001; Dagenais & Day, 1999; M. E. Garcia, 2003; O. Garcia, 1995; Gibbons & Ramirez, 2004; Guardado, 2002, 2006; Hakuta & D'Andrea, 1992; Hamid, 2007; He, 2006; Kouritzin, 1999, 2006; Kravin, 1992; Li, 1999; Pacini-Ketchabaw et al., 2001; Pease-Alvarez, 2002, 2003; Sakamoto, 2001; Schecter & Bayley, 1997, 2002; Schiff-Myers, 1992; Schiff-Myers, Djukic, Mcgovern-Lawler, & Perez, 1993; Tamis, 2005; Tannenbaum, 2005; Tannenbaum & Berkovich, 2005; Tannenbaum & Howie, 2002; Thomas & Cao, 1999; Waas, 1993, 1997; Xiao, 1998; Zentella, 1997, 2005). However, most of the work on Spanish-English bilingualism in North America up until now has concentrated on Mexican Americans (e.g., Merino, 1983) and Puerto Ricans (e.g., Zentella, 1997), ignoring other Latin American groups whose diversity has sometimes been acknowledged, but not studied in depth. Work with a focus on Hispanic groups in Canada seems critical as the Canadian population changes and growing numbers of Spanish-speakers settle in the country.  This linguistic group is usually portrayed as monolithic and homogeneous in the research literature. However, the extensive diversity of the Spanish-speaking population (Guardado, 2003; Schecter & Bayley, 1997; Zentella, 1996) calls for research that reflects the plurality within and across Hispanic groups of different national origins. Again in the Canadian context, there appears to be an even greater need for this type of investigation (as opposed to the U.S. context, where most of the work with this population has been carried 4  out), given the particular characteristics of the Hispanic population in this country. For instance, it is not common in Canada to find large concentrations of Hispanic people of a particular national origin in a given geographical area; rather, Hispanic groups are dispersed in the broader community. Even more importantly, the study of language issues among Spanish-speaking populations in the Canadian context is still in its early development stages and the need for comprehensive research over the next few years is likely to increase. It is not surprising that over the last two decades the work on Hispanic communities and on Spanish as a heritage language has been intensified, particularly as it pertains to the United States. In Canada, on the other hand, there is only minimal work focusing specifically on language socialization and Spanish maintenance within the growing population of Hispanics. There is, however, a recent increased interest in examining language issues with this population with a variety of foci and from different methodological perspectives. For example, there is an emerging body of research with an exclusive focus on (micro) linguistic aspects of the acquisition, use or attrition of Spanish by Latin Americans in Canada. Work in this line includes studies by Hoffman (2004) and Cuza (2001, 2004).  As part of her doctoral dissertation, Hoffman (2004) conducted a quantitative sociolinguistic variationist study of the Spanish spoken by Salvadorean youth in the Toronto area. Hoffman sought to investigate questions related to the nature of variation, specifically, final -s and final -n, in the speech of Salvadorean youth living in Toronto. She also examined the linguistic and social constraints on variation and whether such variation carried any socio-symbolic meaning. Among other findings, she was able to verify that the aspiration and deletion of final -s is associated with Salvadorean Spanish, particularly with speakers from rural and uneducated backgrounds. Thus, she suggests that this and other populations of Hispanic youth use language and phonological variables as a form of identity. Furthermore, her study highlighted the importance of language retention and language choice for her participants who used English in public contexts, but spoke Spanish with family and friends. Among other recommendations directly related to sociolinguistic variation work in Spanish, she suggests that future research using ethnographic methods to examine language maintenance and loss in Toronto is needed.   5   Unfortunately, research focusing specifically on Spanish heritage language programs, in high school Spanish classes, or in home and community settings is still limited.1 Abdi’s (2006) master’s degree research is a qualitative case study that examines the identity negotiations and positionings of high school students – many of whom are of Latin American origin – in Spanish-as-a-foreign language classes in Metro Vancouver. Her study problematizes the labels typically used to refer to Spanish-as-a-heritage-language students, arguing that none of the terms commonly adopted by teachers and researchers (e.g., “Hispanic”, “Spanish”, “Latin, an English rendering of Latino/a”) seem to adequately capture the inherent complexity of Spanish heritage language learners. That is, such terms do not account for the potential multitude of intervening factors, such as the learners’ language proficiency (Valdés, 2000), level of emotional attachment to and affiliation with the L1 (Fishman, 2001), issues of inclusion and exclusion (Wiley, 2001; Wiley & Valdés, 2000), and other factors associated with the learners’ histories and identities. Research of this nature (as described above) has provided significant insights into language issues affecting the Spanish-speaking population in Canada, yet further work on L1 maintenance issues is still needed given the considerable gaps in the understanding of the topic with this population in Canada. With the advent and recognition of language socialization as a robust theoretical and methodological paradigm in the last two decades, and considering there is no research of this nature with Spanish-speakers in Canada, research using this lens can potentially provide ground-breaking insights into Spanish maintenance and loss in this context.  Language socialization is currently to be understood as a non-linear, dynamic, complex, and multidirectional process (Duff, 2003, 2007b, 2007c; Duff & Hornberger, 2008; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2008) in which individuals and families socialize others "into new domains of knowledge and cultural practice" (Bayley & Schecter, 2003, p. 2) so they can effectively and appropriately participate in the social life of their community (Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002). Thus, immigrant family members are continuously and mutually socialized into systems of meaning-making in their own cultures and in the cultures in which they live. Because language and participation in cultural worlds are the primary means of                                                  1 Current work in progress within families with a focus on Spanish maintenance issues includes Master’s theses by Helen Baergen in Ontario and Luz Enith Cristiano in Quebec. 6  attaining membership in these cultural milieus, the study seeks to examine, interpret and document the interplay of factors and processes that create the experiences shaping these children’s multilingual and multicultural identities. Thus, it is critical to investigate how immigrant Hispanic families and their children cope with the challenge of being socialized into the various contexts of Canadian society in order to better understand the issues they face in relation to Spanish language loss and maintenance. Such research could also potentially reveal and help understand other educational concerns affecting them. One of the concerns that a language socialization perspective can potentially address stems from Latin American children’s school experiences nationwide, but especially in Vancouver, where Hispanic children have some of the lowest performance scores in secondary schools, the highest drop out rates and the lowest representation rates at the university level (Gunderson, 2007). Similar results are also available in relation to this population in the Toronto area (R. S. Brown, 1994; Drever, 1996). In this vein, it has been reported (Ornstein, 1997) that in Canada, only 65% of Hispanics graduate from high school, and only 10% of them graduate from university. In Vancouver, the findings are even more disturbing. In a recently completed longitudinal study of 25,000 immigrant students, Gunderson (2007) found that only 36% of Hispanic students graduated from high school and of those, only 8% went to university. Furthermore, he found that bilingual immigrant students entering secondary schools fared better than immigrant students entering as monolinguals.  The above findings, along with the characteristics and current trends in the Spanish-speaking population in Canada and recent findings in relation to L1 maintenance and academic development, warrant further study in the language socialization of Spanish-speaking families in this context. Most of the Canadian research in this area has been done in Toronto, although Canada’s Spanish-speaking population has been growing steadily in the last two decades and is now the country’s sixth-largest non-official mother tongue (Statistics Canada, 2006), with the highest concentrations in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. This omission is particularly alarming for the following reason: recent research shows first / heritage language maintenance does not hinder children’s linguistic and academic development in the dominant language (e.g., English) (Schecter & Bayley, 1997, 2002), a claim that has traditionally been made by “English-only” proponents in the United States 7  (Crawford, 1992). On the contrary, it has been argued consistently that the maintenance of the heritage language fosters the development of oracy and literacy skills in a second language (Crawford, 1992; Cummins, 2000; Krashen, 1996), in addition to other potential or actual academic, social, economic, personal, and cognitive benefits (Colin Baker, 2001; Cummins, 1977; De Mejia, 2002; Dewaele, Housen, & Wei, 2003; Duff, 2007a; Hakuta, 1986; Heller, 1999; Moll, 1992, 1998; Moll, Armanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992; Moll & Gonzalez, 1994; Moll, Saez, & Dworin, 2001; Rumbaut, 1995; Worthy & Rodríguez-Galindo, 2006). Based on these premises, in-depth study of various issues, as well as family, community and school experiences with this population, including their language socialization and Spanish maintenance is an important step in understanding the challenges they face.  1.2 Research Questions  This study addresses how a number of immigrant families and their children coped with the challenge of socializing themselves and being socialized into Canadian society. More specifically, it examines the issues they faced in relation to the Spanish language loss and maintenance of their children in home, school and community settings. The research questions the study investigates are: What are the contextual factors and ideologies that impact the bilingual and multilingual language socialization of immigrant Hispanic families and their children in home, school, and community settings in Metro Vancouver? i) What are the language socialization desires and goals of the families in relation to L1 maintenance and how do they conceptualize L1 maintenance? ii) What are the practices through which the families socialize linguistic ideologies? iii) How are language socialization processes in the community related to language ideologies, practices and L1 maintenance? iv) What role does school play in the linguistic socialization and L1 maintenance of the families?  1.3 Significance of the Study  Despite some arguments that are still prevalent (i.e., English-only movements), there is overwhelming agreement among educators today that bilingualism and multilingualism offer many benefits to individuals, including minority children. The New London Group (2000), 8  for instance, maintains that cultural and linguistic pluralism offers cognitive benefits to both minority and “mainstream” children alike because “when learners juxtapose different languages, discourses, styles, and approaches, they gain substantively in metacognitive and metalinguistic abilities and in their ability to reflect critically on complex systems and their interactions” (p. 15). Thumboo (1992) asserts that the creativity of an additional language “provides for the possibility that the proficient bilingual has a sharper perception of reality because he [sic] is bifocal” (p. 271). Cummins’ Interdependence Hypothesis (Cummins, 1979, 1981) maintains that L1 academic skills transfer to L2. He also asserts that a strong L1 facilitates the acquisition of L2 and increases children’s chances of success in school.  Schecter and Bayley (2002) call for a restructuring of the terms of debate, away from the ones based on a deficit model of bilingualism prevalent on “English-only” agendas in the United States. According to Schecter and Bayley, those terms should include a focus on the additive potential of multilingualism and cultural pluralism and acknowledge the positive consequences of minority-language maintenance as experienced by individuals.  It has been suggested in recent years that orality and literacy in L1 transfers to the second language (L2) and can help children develop stronger academic skills (Crawford, 1992; Cummins, 2000; Krashen, 1996). Based on the Interdependence Hypothesis, one way to attempt to foster academic skills among Spanish-speaking students, and more generally among linguistic minorities, is through extensive research leading to a better understanding of the L1 maintenance and loss phenomenon and the transmission of heritage languages. Furthermore, given that very little research has been conducted on this topic and with this population in Canada, this study may provide a deeper understanding of Spanish-speakers’ need for linguistic and community support in order to increase their chances of success in school and attain better representation at the university level. Understanding the experiences and needs of linguistic minority students and their families may increasingly become an important goal of schools. Finding ways to address issues of first and second language acquisition, retention and use is one aspect that can contribute to this understanding. It seems reasonable to assume that by exploring issues of L1 maintenance and loss with this population, this study takes an important step in understanding the challenges they face in school, the home, and the community. This study also adds to the literature on language socialization and home language maintenance and loss, providing insights on issues affecting 9  families, especially those that have been identified by previous studies as critical, namely, key factors affecting the bilingual development process and its effects on intergenerational relationships and communication, biliteracy, multicultural and multilingual identities.  In addition, immigrant populations are growing in Canada and consequently, classrooms everywhere are becoming increasingly diverse. Since teaching linguistic minority students is one of the biggest challenges that educators are facing, I attempt to make a contribution in this regard by providing insights and pedagogical implications that may help minority students be better served in the school system. It is vital to draw on the linguistic and cultural resources and knowledge that these students and their families possess so as to foster a more inclusive education. Taking such an approach can also have important benefits, not only for minority language students, but also for “mainstream” students. Thus, the contribution of this project encompasses all of Canadian society. Finally, because “local values, ideologies, patterns of social organization, and cultural preferences are inscribed in everyday discourse and social interactions” (Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002, p. 341), the theoretical framework used enabled me to analyze the “relationship between everyday linguistic and discursive practices and broader social structures and systems of cultural meaning” (ibid). From this perspective, the study makes several unique contributions to the extant research. It provides an in-depth analysis and complex description of the families’ objectives for language socialization and maintenance. In this regard, it highlights the families’ constructions of language maintenance, adding multiple layers to the current understanding of this construct and expanding it with innovative insights. Additionally, it provides a micro analysis of the language socialization of the families in their homes as well as in key community settings by borrowing analytic tools from conversation analysis and drawing on notions from psycholinguistic perspectives of second language acquisition (e.g., recasts and self-repair). The study examines how recasts and self-repair played an important role in the socialization of children into particular linguistic ideologies. The resulting analysis reveals characteristics of the language socialization processes in the families, uncovers values and linguistic ideologies inscribed in their social interactions, and connects these issues to the macro sociocultural context. Finally, the study uncovers a novel initiative in the local Hispanic community: the existence of family 10  grassroots groups with the objective to transmit the Spanish language and cultures to their children. Many issues not reported in this dissertation emerged from the data. Therefore, I had to choose and highlight areas that were groundbreaking, original, or seemed to be important contributions to the field. For instance, a key finding that strongly emerged in this study was that as part of L1 maintenance, families construct support networks, without which their children would be at greater risk of losing the language in new generations. Thus, this finding became a compelling thrust of the dissertation.  1.4 Outline of the Dissertation Chapter 2 describes the theoretical framework and the research literature on first language maintenance and loss. First, it provides an overview of language socialization and locates it within the field of second language acquisition. It then examines emerging conceptualizations of language socialization and its applications in monolingual and multilingual settings, with particular emphasis on Spanish language socialization. The second part of the chapter presents a literature review of first language loss and maintenance in general, with a particular focus on factors traditionally associated with first language maintenance and loss, such as linguistic ideologies, the role of schools, identity, and family factors. Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology, ethnography, and describes the participants and the settings. The chapter also describes the design of the study, Phase I, Phase IIA and IIB, and outlines the data collection and analysis procedures. The next three chapters, Chapters 4, 5, and 6, present three families that constitute the core of this multiple-case ethnographic study. Chapter 4 introduces the Fernández-Maradiaga family and examines the family’s constructions of Spanish maintenance through an analysis of interview data and participant observation. The second part of the chapter outlines the formation of a Spanish language Scout group, El Grupo Scout Vistas, and examines the factors and characteristics affecting the dynamics of language use and characteristics of the language socialization of the families. Chapter 5 follows the same format as Chapter 4 and addresses some of the issues the Ruedas-Blanco family faced in relation to Spanish maintenance. It also describes the characteristics of El Centro de Cultura y Arte Latinoamericano (The Latin American Centre 11  for Culture and the Arts), a group in which the Ruedas-Blanco family’s children participated, and analyzes the types of language socialization that these and other children were exposed to in the group. As in the previous two chapters, Chapter 6 introduces a family, the Aguirre-Ramírez family, and the grassroots group in which they participated, La Casa Amistad (Friendship House). It presents an overview of the family’s history and circumstances and an analysis of the family’s language socialization processes. It also provides an examination of the language socialization experiences of the family, along with the other group co-participants. Chapter 7 synthesizes findings from the three case families and their grassroots groups and presents a cross-case analysis of the patterns emerging from these families, interweaving these issues with findings emerging from the broad survey of families in the initial phase of the study. Chapter 8 summarizes the major findings related to the families’ aims of language socialization and the processes involved. It concludes with implications for language and educational policy, pedagogy and future research. 12  Chapter 2 SECOND LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION AND L1 MAINTENANCE  2.1 Second Language Socialization: Emerging Conceptualizations Second language socialization research has evolved in response to critiques of traditional conceptualizations of second language acquisition (SLA) theory, mainly because these traditional approaches tend to emphasize individual cognitive processes in language acquisition, rather than processes of participation and membership negotiation in social worlds. Scholars working from an L2 socialization perspective seek to fill that gap by incorporating social and cultural domains into analyses of L2 learning and highlighting the situated nature of the learning process in general, but more specifically in relation to L2 learning and the socializing nature of linguistic interaction.  Current trends in L2 socialization also focus on issues affecting immigrants who typically seek greater participation and membership in the contexts in which they live, which are increasingly multilingual and multicultural. In these settings, a plethora of issues related to their linguistic socialization and acculturation arise, and individuals and their families need to negotiate their participation in such communities through complex systems of potentially unequal power relations. The notion of L2 socialization is the result of developments in SLA over several decades. It draws on “sociological, anthropological, and psychological approaches to the study of social and linguistic competence within a social group” (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986b, p. 163), clearly situating language learning and L2 learning in the social realm (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1995, 2008). Language socialization refers to the process by which children are socialized both through language and into language use within a community (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1995, 2008; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a, 1986b). From this perspective, children’s socialization into the cultural practices of their group is mediated by language. Language is the chief tool that members of the social group use in order to transmit their values and beliefs to the child, and the language itself codifies many cultural elements, such as hierarchical relations, which helps form the child’s emerging sense of self. By the same token, through social interaction and “in the process of acquiring social knowledge, children acquire knowledge of language structure and use” (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a, pp. 163-164). It is through this process of socialization that children are taught to use language—and thus 13  acquire language. Hence, the language variety, language use patterns and communication style that children develop are based on the practices of the speech communities in which they interact.  2.1.1 A Multilayered View Social theories of learning are also attracting attention in SLA. One such theory is Lave and Wenger’s (1991) communities of practice framework. From this theoretical perspective, newcomers must learn the language and skills of particular groups, and the explicit and implicit practices and attitudes already internalized and mastered by oldtimers. In such contexts, newcomers become integrated into communities through a process of interaction and socialization by legitimately participating in the periphery. Understanding language learning and socialization from this perspective of apprenticeship communities, immigrant minorities and language learners are scaffolded by established and more skilled individuals until they become skilled participants and full members of the community who smoothly move from the periphery to the center.  Given that language socialization can be defined as “the lifelong process by means of which individuals—typically novices—are inducted into specific domains of knowledge, beliefs, affect, roles, identities, and social representations” (Duff, 1995, p. 508), the concept referred to as ‘situated learning’ within communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) can help illuminate language socialization processes. In a community of practice, learning is connected to values, beliefs, identities, memberships and social relations. The concept of situated learning implies that participants—learners—are actively engaged with the context in which their membership and their identity are shaped and continually influence one another, one constantly and dynamically balancing and maintaining the other in a dialectical relationship. Just as membership in a learning context affords members a particular identity, their identities help them negotiate the existing power relations, obtain participation and facilitate the attainment of membership in those learning contexts. However, values, beliefs, and identities play a critical role in the memberships and social relations that newcomers are able to negotiate. These values, beliefs, and identities determine the extent to which novices succeed in that process, facilitate their integration, but often as the result of complex power dynamics, limit and even undermine their acceptance and eventual enlisting in those communities. 14   Newcomers may rightfully see interactions with oldtimers in communities as ideal opportunities for them to obtain knowledge, learn the cultural practices of the group (Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002), and to develop their language skills as their social identities are constructed and reconstructed and they become competent members of these communities. In that process, community members and aspiring members are positioned and position themselves. This “positioning is constrained by wider socio-political factors that may be beyond the immediate control of the individual, e.g., racial and class inequalities, linguistic ideologies, unequal distribution of power and resources” (Leung, 2001, Membership section, para. 2) which are at the core of the difficulties in integration that immigrants face. Furthermore, these factors may also be rampant within the minority groups, as the group members further divide and classify one another by social class, education, ethnicity, language variety, linguistic and political ideology, generation, etc. The different types of social and cultural capital that they possess affect the dynamics within the groups, the social networks that are formed and the interactions that develop. These also affect the extent to which members of minority groups gain the “right to speech” and “the power to impose reception” (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 75), which are key in the negotiation of new identities. Due to the above—and possibly other complex factors—sometimes novices (immigrants) are not able to negotiate membership into their adopted communities and they are “ostracized and silenced” (Toohey, 2000, p. 2) by the very oldtimers that are assumed to induct them into new social networks. Additionally, oldtimers not only frequently fail to be effective socializing agents of newcomers, but also “actively exclude them from participation” (Kanno, 2003, p. 13). Thus, the process of language socialization cannot be seen as linear, unproblematic and unidirectional (Duff, 2003, 2007b, 2007c; Duff & Hornberger, 2008). For instance, Duff (2003) posits that some models of language socialization assume that novices “have sufficient access and exposure to the linguistic community, its speakers, and language practices, and there is sufficient goodwill and expertise on the part of the interlocutors to assist, mentor, and accommodate them into the target culture and its practices” (p. 315). In practice many new immigrants feel rejected and even ridiculed by the expert oldtimers who prove inaccessible to aspiring language learners, as was the case of Eva, an immigrant woman language learner struggling to have access to 15  Anglophones, but who found herself being excluded from the social network at work (Norton, 2000).  In conclusion, the processes of language socialization and identity formation are much more complex than what traditional models of language socialization based on monolingual small-scale societies might suggest. Lave and Wenger’s model, for instance, assumes that oldtimers are able and willing, at all times, to assist newcomers to acquire the rules and practices of the new community. It also assumes that newcomers are always able to access willing oldtimers and that they always desire to belong to and remain in the community. On the contrary, this process of language socialization is often “marked by peaks and valleys, progression and regression, times of learning and forgetting, of belonging and not belonging, of speaking and being silent, and all the tensions, confusion, and points in between” (Duff, 2003, p. 333). Frequently, the definitions of periphery and center, as well as those of oldtimers and newcomers, appear blurred and dynamic and the attitudes and enacted behaviors of these individuals do not support a linear and unproblematic language socialization. Moreover, the broader sociopolitical contexts inflict pressures on individuals (Worthy & Rodríguez-Galindo, 2006), favoring the advancement of some linguistic ideologies, practices and interests while holding back others, such as the use of home languages.  2.1.2 Current Trends in Language Socialization In addition to the research trends focusing on L2 socialization, multilingual and multicultural populations are also attracting more attention among researchers interested in the particularities of socialization processes (Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002), such as the processes taking place in vocational (Duff, Wong, & Early, 2000), occupational (Goldstein, 1997), and educational settings (see, e.g., Duff, 2008c, for a critical review). Recent research in educational settings has focused on various aspects of the academic literacy socialization of international students at the university level (Kobayashi, 2003; Morita, 2000, 2004; Morita & Kobayashi, 2008; Zappa-Hollman, 2007). Additionally, some of the L2 socialization studies with multilingual and multicultural populations have combined home, school, and community settings and have focused on a variety of issues. Some of these issues are related to cultural identity formation / maintenance and/or bilingual and multilingual socialization (Dagenais & Day, 1999; Guardado, 2002, 2006; He, 2006; Schecter & Bayley, 1997, 2002), 16  attitudes toward L1 and L2 languages (Patrick, 2003; Pease-Alvarez, 2002, 2003), language socialization in Canadian Indigenous communities (Pesco & Crago, 2008), language socialization and social identity in doctrina classes (Baquedano-Lopez, 2000) and gendered second language socialization (Gordon, 2008). Others have examined teasing (Eisenberg, 1986), maternal teaching talk (Eisenberg, 2002), multimodality (Pahl, 2008), communication in online communities (Lam, 2008), and explanatory emotion talk (Cervantes, 2002), to mention just a few. 2.1.3 Language Socialization in Multilingual Settings Many added complexities are presented by the language socialization of bilinguals (Luykx, 2003). In their language socialization process, bilingual and multilingual individuals must assign meanings to their developing selves and negotiate their identities in multicultural homes, schools, communities, and other settings and attempt to find their place in society. This, of course, is further complicated by many other factors when immigrants are involved (see e.g., Duff, Wong, & Early, 2000). They may face the devaluing of their languages and cultures, contradictory language and culture ideologies within the families, and the clashing of cultural patterns between the home culture and the dominant culture. The tensions generated by these issues may affect the languages spoken by family members or the degrees to which these languages are spoken within their families. Additionally, they may face linguistic, economic, social and political difficulties in their quest for integration. Some of the research cited in this chapter examines specifically some of these issues, providing many insights into the challenges immigrants face. 2.1.3.1  Language Socialization of Hispanics in Multilingual Settings Several of the central issues studied in many bilingual language socialization projects involve a combination of cultural identity formation, patterns of bilingual development and attitudes toward the languages involved, as such issues are inherently tied to socialization and acculturation. Hispanics, usually Puerto Ricans and Mexicans and people of Mexican-descent in the United States, have been the object of major studies focusing on these important issues. Schecter and Bayley (1997, 2002) examined the language socialization of Mexican-descent families as well as their views of their culture and heritage language and its role in their cultural identity. Some of these issues will be discussed in the following sections that address the maintenance and loss of heritage languages in English-dominant contexts. 17  2.2 Language Loss and Maintenance One area directly affected by the language socialization of linguistic minority immigrants in multilingual settings is L1 loss and maintenance. A new generation of researchers working in a variety of interconnected fields such as linguistics (Thomas & Cao, 1999; Wong Fillmore, 1991), applied linguistics (de Courcy, 2007; Kouritzin, 1999; Sakamoto, 2001; Suarez, 2007; Tannenbaum, 2005; Tannenbaum & Howie, 2002), ethnolinguistics and sociolinguistics (Schecter & Bayley, 2002), anthro-political linguistics (Zentella, 1997), education (Torres, 2006), and speech-language pathology (Schiff-Myers, 1992) have completed insightful research projects in this field combining a variety of research methods, but mostly relying on qualitative approaches. These projects have contributed to new understandings of L1 maintenance and loss, providing the basis for further investigation in various directions. Despite significant advances, however, the current understanding of this field is still incomplete and ongoing research is required on issues such as: families’ perceptions of L1 and literacy development and strategies to support it; individual variation in L1 and L2 identity formation within families and groups; language shift in the home; the effects of child-rearing practices on L1 maintenance and loss; the families’ aims of language socialization and the processes of linguistic ideology socialization in home language interactions; and the challenges that minority language immigrant families face in their bilingual socialization efforts. 2.2.1 Forces against L1 Maintenance There is a growing body of research indicating that there are numerous barriers to L1 maintenance for most linguistic minority groups in immigrant contexts. Zentella (1997) posits, for example, that L1 maintenance and/or development beyond basic skills requires much more than daily contact with a limited circle of two or three family members, even in cases where the child makes annual trips to the L1 culture. She argues that bilingual education is necessary in order to successfully foster bilingual skills, something that is unlikely to happen in most cases in Zentella’s research context, given the policies on bilingual programs in the United States, which do not accommodate English-dominant bilinguals, and continue to decline even for non English-dominant bilinguals. That hope becomes even more unlikely, given the tendency in many states to do away with such programs, rendering Hispanic children further disenfranchised. For minority children already 18  on the language loss path, this means missing an opportunity at struggling “to recover their lost humanity” (Freire, 1970, p. 44), or in Ofelia Garcia’s words, referring to minority language loss, putting minorities in a situation that “sinks them even further into the silence of the oppressed” (O. Garcia, 1995, p. 144). However, motivated by various factors, some families promote the language loss path, a point discussed in the Language Ideologies section. 2.2.2 Key Factors in L1 Loss and Maintenance The maintenance and loss of heritage languages is a complex phenomenon which is affected by a variety of factors, both from within and outside the family unit. Although family language practices are the most critical and decisive in this process, these do not emerge in a vacuum and are also influenced by a number of complex forces that are largely out of the control of the families (see Figure 1 for a visual representation of some of the interacting factors). As the downward dotted arrow in Figure 2.1 indicates, factors such as family and their aspirations and ideologies, the broader societal language ideologies, the role of schools and the community, and more broadly, the cultural, socioeconomic and political context, are some of the most critical elements that have a bearing on home language practices. Similarly, the upward dotted arrows suggest home language practices can potentially have an impact on these factors. Language loss and maintenance have important consequences for individuals and their families in various aspects of their lives and throughout their lifetimes. The solid outer arrows in Figure 2.1 delineate how the language loss and maintenance phenomena, along with the resulting identities of individuals, are the main forces that can influence community and school settings and contribute to the transformation of the linguistic ideologies of society. For instance, scholars and researchers argue that immigrant parents usually concern themselves with their rapid integration into the host country (Merino, 1983; Worthy & Rodríguez-Galindo, 2006). This implies learning the dominant language as quickly as possible as a means of securing employment, fulfilling their daily needs and establishing themselves as members of the community. It also implies encouraging their children to learn 19              Figure 2.1: The Interaction of Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Factors Affecting L1 Loss and Maintenance  the dominant language quickly and accurately in order to succeed in school, and later, in society in general (Cummins, 2000; Howard, 2008). Quite often, however, parents and L2CULTURAL POLITICAL ECONOMIC (SES)L1Community Language Ideologies Home Language Practices School L1 Loss & Maint. Identity 20  children face unforeseen toil and adverse consequences in achieving this integration. Parents often work hard and fail to acquire enough skills to attain adequate employment and end up with low-level, low-paying jobs,2 a fate immigrants cannot easily escape, even with sufficient English skills (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2001). Their children move along the language-learning path at a much faster rate due to their extended contact with the dominant language and frequently end up dealing with adult situations as their parents’ interpreters at doctors’ offices, government agencies and other places. According to some accounts (e.g., Norton, 2000), children are sometimes asked to assist their parents in such challenging tasks as job-hunting, putting the children in an awkward situation, often witnessing their parents’ frustrations at repeatedly being refused employment. These circumstances further strain parents and negatively affect their sense of ‘adults in charge’ and their self-esteem, to the detriment of the well-being of the family. This perceived blessing—language acquisition ability—does not come without a cost for children and familial relationships. In the process of learning the dominant language, their L1 erodes gradually (Wong Fillmore, 1991).  2.2.2.1  Linguistic Ideologies Another aspect of L1 loss and maintenance that requires more extensive research and analysis is the status of minority languages (and cultures) and minority language varieties (e.g., “Spanglish”) outside and also within minority groups themselves and how these ideologies are socialized through interaction. Language ideologies can be defined as the values and beliefs that individuals and communities espouse about the worth of their languages and how these languages should be used in their social lives (Baquedano-Lopez & Kattan, 2008). A focus on language ideologies becomes vital in studies of L1 maintenance as they “envision and enact links of language to group and personal identity…” (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994, pp. 55-56), making them particularly explicit in multilingual contexts (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1995). In these settings, the attitudes and beliefs of the community members about language are critical to their L1 maintenance success. These attitudes and beliefs evolve and change through the face-to-face interactions (Gibbons & Ramirez, 2004), as well as indirect interactions, of the members of the minority community with in-group and out-group members. However, we must not forget the enormous effect of the broader                                                  2 Even a decade after immigrating to Canada, as many as 47% of immigrants are still living below the poverty line (35% across Canada, 40% in Vancouver and 47% in Montreal, according to Statistics Canada (2004). 21  sociopolitical forces on beliefs and attitudes that people have about language (Worthy & Rodríguez-Galindo, 2006; Zhang, 2005) and the resulting behaviors (i.e., home language practices) (Morris & Jones, 2008), which ultimately help facilitate or hinder language maintenance. Thus, the linguistic ideologies of parents and children have a direct impact on L1 acquisition and maintenance (Howard, 2008; Ochs & Schieffelin, 1995, 2008). Understanding how these preferred ideologies and communicative practices are socialized is central to elucidating the processes underlying L1 loss and maintenance. Through reflection, personal observation and a diary study of herself and her Chinese-speaking 12 year old daughter while living in Hawaii, Li (1999) provides important insights into these issues, including the valuing of the L1 and L2, parental attitudes about L1 and L2 and L1 and L2 cultures, and familial relationships. Li’s study recognizes that minority-languages are often marginalized in schools and in the larger community, causing those speakers to also feel marginalized. She declares that often “there is an invisible wall between the outside world and us” (p. 116). Her study also highlights the value that minority-language speakers should assign to their languages as an important prerequisite in minority-language transmission, a point also made by participants in other studies (e.g., Guardado, 2002). Just as so-called “non-standard” varieties of English are devalued in the English-speaking world (e.g., African American and Appalachian English in the U.S.) (Lanehart, 1999; Tamura, 1996), some varieties of Spanish are often devalued in Spanish-speaking contexts. In Schecter and Bayley’s (1997, 2002) study, the participating parents reportedly felt that Spanish in general was devalued in the community and that certain varieties of Spanish (e.g., Spanglish, Latin American Spanish) were devalued by speakers of “prestige” varieties (e.g., Spanish as it is spoken in Spain). This points to a growing sense that many minority groups continue to devalue, or suppress at home (Howard, 2008), “less desirable” varieties of their own language and in many cases, their own variety. This suggests that the hegemony of English and of Standard colonial varieties (e.g., Continental Spanish) continues to have serious consequences for underprivileged groups in the United States (and quite possibly, in other English-speaking contexts), and as Schecter and Bayley argue, many of whom are convinced that English monolingualism and Americanization offer a fast track to 22  success and a possibility of access to the American Dream, a hope that continues to elude most members of minorities.  While making important contributions to the literature and to the understanding of the field, some studies unfortunately do not emphasize important factors affecting the L1 maintenance and loss process. These studies do not address the status of the participants’ languages in relation to English within the community and fail connect the issues discussed to the larger sociopolitical context (e.g., Pacini-Ketchabaw et al., 2001; Thomas & Cao, 1999). As has been argued so far, those external forces have a major impact on the home language use patterns of linguistic minorities. 2.2.2.2   The Role of Schools Another powerful influence on heritage language maintenance and loss is the role of schools. Baquedano-Lopez and Kattan (2008) argue that schools are “one of the primary sites in which the legitimacy of one language or another is contested” (p. 169). While school policies and practices are directly affected by the larger sociopolitical context (Baquedano-Lopez & Kattan, 2008), including the community language ideologies, schools have a more direct bearing on the language practices of children (Chumak-Horbatsch, 1999; Kouritzin, 1999, 2000, 2006; Schecter & Bayley, 1997; Wong Fillmore, 1991), both in the home and in the community. Schools are usually the main L2 socialization milieu (Howard, 2008; L. Moore, 2008), providing children a novel language alternative that they happily bring home and use with their siblings (Howard, 2008).   For example, soon after starting school, children often start speaking the dominant language to siblings and friends—and even to their monolingual or nearly monolingual parents. Sometimes in response to the tensions created by the experience of being a subordinated cultural and linguistic group, and also because of the various outside pressures, families adopt home language practices that favor the decline of the mother tongue. There are several cases of this nature reported in the literature (see e.g., Kouritzin, 1999) as well as informal accounts related by those who have had this experience. On other occasions parents and other adults in the family encourage the children to speak the dominant language at home, turning the children into resources from which to learn and with whom to practice. However, frequently the influence of schools on home language practices goes well beyond the natural embracing of the L2 by the children. Often, parents are encouraged by 23  school personnel to speak the dominant language at home (Kouritzin, 1999; Schecter & Bayley, 1997, 2002), to the detriment of the home language, and when that happens, the primary means by which families and their children are socialized begins to crumble (Wong Fillmore, 1991). For instance, Schecter and Bayley (1997, 2002) explain how the teachers of some of the children in their ethnographic study recommended to parents to speak only in English to their children in order to facilitate their integration into the schools, an issue that has repeatedly emerged in the literature (Chumak-Horbatsch, 1999; Kouritzin, 1999;  Lawson & Sachdev, 2004; Pacini-Ketchabaw et al., 2001; Rodríguez, 1982; Wong Fillmore, 1991) Pacini-Ketchabaw et al. (2001) recently reported on an exploratory study as part of a larger project of 45 families from several different Spanish-speaking countries. The main focus of this study was on the influences of school on home language practices. Many of the parents had received specific instructions from school personnel to only speak English to their children. Moreover, whenever there was a deficiency in the performance of the children, school officials would often suggest that it was caused by the use of Spanish at home.  Many language programs—and public schools—have rules making the use of L2 in the classroom, and indeed, on the entire school grounds, mandatory, banning L1 use altogether and punishing its use (M. E. Garcia, 2003; Hurtado & Rodríguez, 1989; Rodríguez, 1982). It is likely that such practices contribute to shaping students’ ideologies about the value of their own languages and cultures and reinforce the hegemony of English. These emerging linguistic ideologies have the potential of causing children to resist their parents’ efforts to socialize them into Spanish ideologies and Spanish practices for family interaction. 2.2.2.3 Identity  In relation to language acquisition in general, and particularly concerning the issue of L1 maintenance and loss, it can be argued that people’s interactions fully shape their language growth or lack thereof. This can be understood as an identity issue, as identity refers to the different meanings that individuals ascribe to themselves (Kleine, Kleine, & Kernan, 1993) and how these meanings fundamentally shape, and are shaped by, the types of interactions in which they engage. 24  Schecter and Bayley (1997) found that all the participants understood L1 loss as cultural identity loss. Although all the parents in the study reported having a strong Mexican cultural identity and were attempting to pass down their cultural roots to their children as a way of maintaining their heritage, not all the families succeeded. Pacini-Ketchabaw et al. (2001) also reported that the participating families saw L1 maintenance as a way to foster family unity, Latino identity and future professional advancement.  Sakamoto’s (2000) findings suggest that cultural awareness and the connection of L1 maintenance and identity are also important factors, as the parents’ understanding of this complex issue is one of the keys to success in L1 maintenance, coupled with the complete cultural, social and economic capital (Bourdieu, 1986) necessary to provide children with an enriching experience. In other studies, L1 has been seen as “a necessary social resource for maintaining cultural tradition and ethnic identity” (Schecter & Bayley, 2002, p. 79). While the ability to successfully maintain the home language in a dominant language environment gives minority language speakers a stronger identity and sense of self, a strong L1 identity has been identified as one of the most critical factors conducive to L1 maintenance. Thus, I posit that the relationship between language maintenance and cultural identity is a dialectical one. In this vein, children who do not develop a strong L1 attachment may even be ambivalent about their identity and feel “shame about the home language and culture” (Cummins, 1984, p. 119). If identity can be defined as “how the self conceives of itself, and labels itself” (Mathews, 2000, p. 17), how does someone “label” themselves when there is a contradiction in how they ‘perceive’ themselves? If the “individual and culture are inseparable” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, p. 203), how can they acknowledge and value who they are? This raises a myriad of questions about the study of L1 loss and retention, between the interests of different generations and how the research can serve these interests. In relation to forces supporting minority identities, it can be argued that ethnolinguistic and ethnocultural groups have unique characteristics that help shape the degree of success they can expect in L1 maintenance. For instance certain groups, like Japanese families in Canada, have at their disposal a number of symbolic and material resources (i.e., Japanese Saturday School) (Bourdieu, 1986) that enable them to pursue their goals more successfully (see e.g., Sakamoto, 2001) than other groups that do not have those kinds of resources, and 25  therefore, are unable to operate such programs. Certainly, not only the material resources play a crucial role in L1 maintenance, as some forms of cultural capital, such as cultural and linguistic awareness (Guardado, 2006, in press), seem to strengthen cultural identities, which give families the potential to more actively pursue the preservation of their heritage and heritage languages by consciously or unconsciously implementing language ideologies in the home (and enacting home language practices) that are more conducive to the multilingual and multiliterate development of their children. As argued above, I posit that this linguistic socialization in turn strengthens the individual cultural identity, turning this process into a dialectical relationship with the potential of infinite iterations.  2.2.2.4   Intergenerational Communication and Family Cohesion As described in the above sections, there are many factors that affect and shape the home language ideologies of linguistic minorities, promoting certain language practices in the home. The language use choices that parents and children make have immense consequences for their future ability to communicate well with kin in any language, especially at more complex levels. Thus, L1 loss and maintenance has a direct impact on intergenerational communication (Guardado, 2002; Kouritzin, 1999; Schecter & Bayley, 2002; Thomas & Cao, 1999; Wong Fillmore, 1991), most often between children and extended family including grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. The majority of studies in the field speak to this issue. For instance, an important goal in maintaining Spanish reported by the participants in Schecter and Bayley’s (1997) study was having a connection with family and family history. Li (1999) also addressed the crucial role that L1 maintenance has in ensuring familial unity and bridging generation gaps. In Pacini et al.’s (2001) study, among other findings, the families saw L1 maintenance as a way to foster family unity. Sakamoto (2001) emphasized that for her Japanese participants, family cohesion was the most important factor. In her qualitative study of adults who had experienced language loss in childhood, Kouritzin (1999) found that the great majority of participants reported many negative familial effects. Likewise, in a sociolinguistic study of a Chinese community in Britain, Wei (1994) details generational changes in language choice among Chinese immigrant families. An interesting case illustrating intergenerational communication issues is provided by Thomas and Cao (1999). Among the findings documented by the researchers, the frustrations 26  of family members in communicating with one another in their daily lives was one of the most salient issues. The children communicated with their parents with difficulty and only barely with grandparents, a situation that created a tense atmosphere in a home where different languages and cultures collided and where generation gaps exacerbated the situation of family members. All of the children had almost completely shifted to English, a language not mastered by the parents or grandparents. The researchers observed that parents could not even “know” their children or what kind of persons they were, they felt that they had lost authority over their own children, and that they were unable to deal with or even understand the different aspects of their children’s schooling, advising them to do what they thought was right while hoping for the best. It is clear from this study that in relation to the issue of parent-child distancing due to the lack of a shared language, the issue of L1 maintenance is not only important based on nostalgic grounds, as has been suggested in the past. Although nostalgia may play a role in the desire of minority groups to transmit the home language and culture to their children, family cohesion and harmony is jeopardized when the lack of a shared language in the family brings misunderstandings and frustrations to its members and they gradually choose to spend less time attempting to communicate or share experiences as a result. Parents and grandparents are also unable to succeed in the transmission of family traditions to their children or to help them understand and cope with their experiences as they are growing up. Thomas and Cao also provide an analysis of how parents are no longer able to participate in their children’s education and academic decision-making process and feel they are not in control of their children’s lives. When the L1 loss process is underway many “parents often feel that they are losing their children” (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1999, p. 47) because they are no longer able to fully reach them in the language in which they are most competent. For the children, the nuances of the L1 are often lost in the messages. In connection to the issues discussed above, this situation presents obvious implications for identity and possibly a sense of alienation between children and their parents and grandparents. There is no doubt that as this process progresses, not only language is lost. 2.3 Hispanic Diversity The importance of focusing on the diversity of the Spanish-speaking community has recently been raised by scholars (Schecter & Bayley, 2002; Zentella, 1996). Because this 27  linguistic group is usually portrayed as monolithic and homogeneous, especially in the United States, Schecter and Bayley claim that their study can be interpreted as a response to Zentella’s (1996) call for efforts toward better understanding the diversity of the Spanish-speaking community, even within an individual ethnolinguistic group. Furthermore, common assumptions about facilitating factors in L1 maintenance (i.e., the concentration of Latinos in a region, language policy) were found not to be true for all the participating families, demonstrating the diversity of the Mexican-descent population in the United States. This not only suggests that further exploration in this field and in relation to Spanish-speaking populations is essential, but also that work across diverse Spanish speaking populations is needed, in order to more adequately understand the complexities of the issues associated with language socialization and L1 loss and maintenance across ethnic groups. Unfortunately, in the United States most of the work in this field so far has focused on Puerto Ricans (Fishman, Cooper, & Ma, 1971; Zentella, 1997) and Mexicans (Hakuta & D'Andrea, 1992; Merino, 1983; Silva-Corvalán, 1991), possibly due to the large numbers of these populations and their earlier immigration or presence in the country. The present study can also be interpreted as a response to Zentella’s (1996) and Schecter and Bayley’s (2002) call for more in-depth study of diverse Hispanic populations. 2.4 Summary Clearly, many schools in Canada and in the United States continue to privilege English, especially the variety spoken by white, upper-middle class individuals, at the expense of the languages spoken by members of minorities. It is evident that many teachers lack an understanding of minority language issues when they encourage parents to stop speaking the only language they may know at home. There is a need for teachers to become more aware of issues of home language use and of the need to maintain the L1 for educational and social reasons. Rather than asking parents to stop speaking it, teachers should be recommending that families increase the uses of L1 at home and suggest strategies and resources for doing so. Fortunately, many teachers do encourage parents to foster their heritage languages with their children at home, a trend that is bound to increase if more awareness of the issues involved are more broadly researched and disseminated. Educational policy has the potential for playing an important role in promoting or hindering the development of heritage languages and multilingualism. Amid all of the 28  complexities raised above, this is a relatively simple issue, for which teachers can be better prepared in finding ways to value and take educational advantage of the multilingual resources in their classrooms (Moll et al., 1992). Learning about, understanding, and promoting these linguistic resources can be extremely important in constructing a more positive view of minority students. Likewise, this is also a positive step in valuing the languages, cultures, skills and rich experiences of students and their families, which has an important impact on the identity formation of students as well, because as their cultures are recognized, highlighting their intrinsic value, they develop a stronger connection to their cultural roots. 29  Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:  THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF COMMUNICATION 3.0 Introduction In this chapter, I will provide a detailed discussion of the research methodology used in the study, the ethnography of communication. Secondly, I will present a general profile of all the participating families.3 Then I will describe the data collection and analysis methods for the study, as well as the research settings. Finally, I will describe how I attempted to enhance the trustworthiness of the study findings. This study employed qualitative research methods to examine the contextual factors and ideologies of the language socialization of immigrant Hispanic families and their children in home and community settings in Metro Vancouver. I chose an ethnographic approach for several reasons. My theoretical framework, language socialization, is solidly grounded in ethnography (Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002). Additionally, ethnographic interviews and participant observation with Hispanic families in various settings provided me with an opportunity to conduct an in-depth investigation of the complex nature of language socialization in these families. These observations and interviews allowed me to examine the processes and outcomes of the implicit and explicit language socialization that the child participants experienced at home and in the community and the effects of these processes on their multilingual and multiliterate development. Moreover, the combination of a language socialization perspective with an ethnographic approach allowed me to focus on both micro and macro levels. As argued by several scholars (e.g., Bronson & Watson-Gegeo, 2008; Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002), a combination of linguistic tools and social theory allows researchers to connect micro processes to the macro context. Using these combined perspectives allowed me to conduct close analyses of the data while connecting the emerging issues to the broader sociopolitical / sociocultural context. This enabled me to conduct a more empirically-grounded analysis of the issues related to language and cultural maintenance, reproduction and transformation (Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002). An ethnographic approach, then, was the most suitable method for the specific research questions I attempted to address in this study. I believed that an analysis of the micro-and                                                  3 Detailed descriptions of the case families will be provided in the findings chapters. 30  macro-level factors affecting the families’ language socialization would provide a more accurate and holistic depiction of this process than by analyzing only one of these domains independently of the others. 3.1 Ethnography Ethnography emerges from one of two main research traditions, quantitative and qualitative. As opposed to quantitative approaches that go back to the positivists of the nineteenth century, qualitative research paradigms are quite new. They have their origins in phenomenology, a philosophical perspective that maintains that “any effort to understand human behaviour must take into account that humans are cognitive beings who actively perceive and make sense of the world around them, have the capacity to abstract from their experience, ascribe meaning to their behaviour and the world around, and are affected by those meanings” (Palys, 1997, p. 16). Qualitative research is interpretivist and seeks to vicariously describe and obtain a more in-depth understanding of people’s experiences, the meanings behind these experiences and what role these play in their relationships with others.  According to Fetterman (1998), “ethnography is the art and science of describing a group or culture” (p. 1). Doing ethnography is often seen as a synonym of doing fieldwork, the heart of ethnography. Ethnographers—or fieldworkers—spend considerable time in a particular setting engaging in participant observation, participating in local daily life (Duranti, 1997), taking notes in order to describe, explain and interpret the everyday as well as the distinctive practices of the culture of that setting. Several academic traditions have embraced ethnography as a valid research methodology because of its robustness. In this vein, as posited by Duff (1995), “representing a range of possible techniques, levels of analysis, and domains of inquiry, ethnography offers a holistic, grounded, and participant-informed perspective…” (p. 507). This versatility of techniques, types of analysis and areas of research in which they can be applied make ethnography an appealing methodology, particularly in the social sciences, enabling researchers to provide a more complex, richer portrait of a group or phenomenon from an emic as well as etic perspective.  3.1.1 The Ethnography of Communication The object of ethnography is to describe and interpret cultures and the object of linguistics is to systematically analyze language codes. The goal of the ethnography of communication, as part of the field of sociolinguistics, is to study communication in different 31  communities. Since language is inseparable from culture and language is one of the systems of culture, this ethnographic orientation provides methods for studying various linguistic issues in communities. To that end, the ethnographer of communication needs to possess the necessary tools for the task: linguistic knowledge and ethnographic techniques. In a specific research setting, the ethnographer of communication studies a variety of issues that might include: • language socialization and enculturation • social interaction • communicative events • communicative strategies • communicative functions • communicative patterns • communication behavior • ways of speaking • routines and rituals In some settings, it may also be significant to focus on issues of code-switching and style-shifting, intercultural communication, cross-cultural communication and the display of identities and linguistic ideologies in talk. When examining any of the above issues, the researcher might endeavor to provide an in-depth description and interpretation of how social meaning is conveyed, and how the speech community is affected as a result. From an ethnography of communication perspective, understandings of cultural systems are connected to language. Language is directly implicated in how communities are socially organized and in how role-relationships are understood and enacted, and in the transmission of beliefs, values, shared knowledge and accepted patterns of behavior (Saville-Troike, 2003). All of these are transmitted from one generation to another in the process of socialization. In the field of applied linguistics, “one of the most significant contributions made by the ethnography of communication is the identification of what a second language learner must know in order to communicate appropriately in various contexts in that language, and what sanctions may be for various communicative shortcomings” (Saville-Troike, 2003, p. 9). Because of these potential contributions, certain research areas within applied linguistics with close connection to sociolinguistics, such as language socialization and bilingualism, are increasingly utilizing the ethnography of communication as a research method (Duff, 1995, 2002; Schecter & Bayley, 1997, 2002; Zentella, 1997). 32  The ethnography of communication is mainly interested in uncovering the patterns of language use and interaction in speech communities. Both in English as a first language and English as a second language settings, as well as in other linguistic ecologies, the ethnography of communication focuses on how individuals are apprenticed in language use, through language and in the “lifelong process through which individuals are initiated into cultural meanings and learn to perform the skills, tasks, roles, and identities expected by whatever society or societies they may live in” (Watson-Gegeo, 1988, p. 582). The ethnography of communication has been established as a viable method of inquiry in a variety of monolingual, but not necessarily mono-dialectal, speech communities (see, e.g., Heath, 1983). Although this type of work has been very important in monolingual communities, following the advent of the ethnography of communication there has been an increased interest in multilingual speech communities as well in order to locate the patterns of language usage of the group members.  With globalization evolving rapidly over the last decade and increasing immigration (e.g., United States and Canada), more languages and cultures are coming into contact than ever before and populations are becoming more culturally and linguistically diverse. This poses an important challenge to researchers who need increasingly more effective and sophisticated research approaches to address issues that arise in those diverse contexts, including schools and communities. The ethnography of communication in multilingual and multicultural settings offers possibilities for investigating pertinent language-related issues in these communities. Duff (2002) contends that the ethnography of communication offers advantages “as a culture- and- context-sensitive method for conducting research” (p. 315). Both in and out of the classroom, this method offers appropriate tools for interactional and linguistic analysis, as well as the ethnographic research tools for exploring, describing and interpreting the beliefs and attitudes about language in speech communities, as well as the communication behaviors, strategies and patterns of language usage that may reveal underlying relationships and power dynamics within those communities. Given that with the development and wider application of ethnography in recent times this method has become so diverse that it is now applied in a “vastly expanded subject matter, limited only by the varieties of experience in modern life” (Vidich & Lyman, 2003, p. 95), ethnography is a viable method for informing the field of applied linguistics. Therefore, 33  ethnography, and more specifically, the ethnography of communication, can be a powerful research tool in understanding language acquisition, socialization and use. Thus, the study reported here utilized an ethnographic methodology to examine the language socialization of Hispanic families in Metro Vancouver with a focus on the development of multilingual and multiliterate identities and sociolinguistic practice. The following research questions were investigated: What are the contextual factors and ideologies that impact the bilingual and multilingual language socialization of immigrant Hispanic families and their children in home, school, and community settings in Metro Vancouver? i) What are the language socialization desires and goals of the families in relation to L1 maintenance and how do they conceptualize L1 maintenance? ii) What are the practices through which the families socialize linguistic ideologies? iii) How are language socialization processes in the community related to language ideologies, practices and L1 maintenance? iv) What role does school play in the linguistic socialization and L1 maintenance of the families? 3.2 Access, Settings, and Participants 3.2.1 Access  The participating families were recruited through a combination of purposive sampling (Patton, 1990) and snowball sampling. Palys (1997) states that “all sampling is purposive to some degree, since identifying a target population invariably expresses the researcher’s interests and objectives” (p. 137). Thus, participants were recruited through various contacts, including: community organizations; non-governmental organizations that provide services to the general population, including recent Hispanic immigrants; Vancouver School Board (VSB) Hispanic multicultural workers; interviews in Spanish language radio programs; and acquaintances (see Appendix A for information provided to potential participants). Additionally, many participants were recruited through snowball sampling when several of the early participants contacted and invited other families of their own initiative. The multicultural workers also invited me to events organized for Hispanic parents at different elementary and secondary schools (e.g., meetings with VSB Trustees) where they introduced me to the parents. In these events I first gave a brief description of the project to 34  the families and circulated a sign up list for parents interested in taking part in the project. The level of interest in these events was quite high, although not all interested parents met the study participant criteria. When inviting families to participate, they were offered a Spanish language children’s book from the Barco de Vapor series. I had a selection of books for different age levels available from which parents could choose. 3.2.2 Settings  This was a multi-site ethnographic study. The initial phase of the study consisted of in-depth interviews with families. These interviews generally took place in the families’ homes, but in some cases, the families chose a setting that was more convenient to them (e.g., workplace). Participant observation and other forms of ethnographic data collection in the second phase of the study took place in families’ homes and in grassroots groups in which they participated. The homes and the groups were located in three different municipalities of Metro Vancouver. Specific details of the settings will be provided in the sections below. 3.2.3 Participants My criteria for recruiting participating families for the study included: • national origin: variety of origins • length of residence in Canada: broad range • children’s ages: school age • family status: one-parent and two-parent families • immigration status: refugee applicants excluded Potential participating families needed to have at least one child of school age, preferably attending elementary school. I hypothesized that the most influential language socialization milieu for immigrant children in terms of language maintenance or shift outside the home was the school environment. Therefore, studying school-age children was a strategic decision in this investigation. In order to obtain a somewhat comparable group of participants, an effort was made to only recruit those families who had arrived as landed immigrants, excluding refugee claimants. The rationale for excluding refugee claimants from the participant pool was that refugees might present additional post-traumatic-related issues and barriers to their integration. Other forms of diversity were desired and sought in recruiting study participants, such as length of residence, national background, and family situation. 35  This section will provide a general profile of the participants, but the three case-study families will be introduced individually in their respective chapters. The participants in the study were 34 Hispanic families living in Metro Vancouver and with ties to ten Spanish-speaking countries (see Table 3.1 for details), mainly Mexico, El Salvador, and Colombia. Of these, four were one-parent families and ten consisted of mixed-language parents. The families’ length of residence in Canada ranged from eight months to 25 years. The average length of residence was 10 years. The number of children varied from one to six, with an average of 2.2 children per family.4 The average age of the children in the study was approximately ten years and their gender representation was close to 50 percent male and 50 percent female. These family characteristics reflect the diversity of the Hispanic population in Metro Vancouver. However, the overwhelming majority of parent participants were college or university-educated (29 out of 34 sets of parents) and had lifestyles considered middle-class in Canada, which was in sharp contrast to the actual overall profile of the Hispanic population in Metro Vancouver. Therefore, the participants cannot be considered typical Hispanic immigrants, but privileged members of the educated middle class. Table 3.1: General Profile of Families Family5 Place of birth Children’s age and gender Female (F) / Male (M) Length of residence in Canada (years) Main language spoken at home Years of parents’ formal school-ing Phase Mrs. Fernández  Mr. Maradiaga (Focal family- El Grupo Scout Vistas) Guatemala 13 (F), 8 (F) 10 Spanish 16/17 I, IIA, IIB Mrs. Ruedas*6 Mr. Blanco (Focal family- El Centro de Cultura) Peru 12 (F), 11 (M), 4 (F) 4 Spanish 15/17 I, IIA, IIB Mrs. Aguirre Mr. Ramírez (Focal Family- La Casa Amistad) Mexico 8 (F), 7 (F), 3 (F) 4 Spanish 17/17 I, IIA, IIB Mrs. Pérez*  Spain  8 (F), 6 (M) 14 Spanish/English 17/12 I, IIB Mr. Feiz Afghanistan                                                   4 Only children living at home were included. Two of the families had adult children not living at home. 5 All names are pseudonyms. 6 When only one parent participated, an asterisk (*) indicates the participating parent. 36  Family5 Place of birth Children’s age and gender Female (F) / Male (M) Length of residence in Canada (years) Main language spoken at home Years of parents’ formal school-ing Phase Mrs. Asturia Mr. Morales  Colombia  9 (F), 5 (F) 3 Spanish 22/21 I, IIB Mrs. Palencia Mr. Palencia Mexico 8 (F) 7 Spanish 17/17 I, IIB Mrs. Marshall* Puerto Rico 4 (F) 17/-7 English 13/- I, IIB Mr. Marshall Canada  Mrs. Ibarra* Mexico 8 (F), 1 (M) 10/- English Spanish 17/12 I, IIB Mr. Piccio Canada  Mrs. Steinberg* Mr. Steinberg Argentina 9 (F), 5 (F) 2 Spanish 17/17 I, IIB Mrs. Juárez Chile 8 (F) 20+ English/Spanish 14 I, IIB Mrs. Hernández Mr. Hernández  Mexico 9 (F), 7 (M), 6 (M) 2.58 Spanish  17/17 IIB Mrs. Solís* Mr. Solis Mexico  8 (F) 6 Spanish  17 IIB Mrs. Martínez* El Salvador 18 (M), 16 (M),  14 (M) 20+/- English Dutch Spanish 14/18 IIB Mr. Hengeveld Netherlands  Mrs. Nieve* Mexico 9 (F) 10 +/- English / Spanish 17/- IIB Mr. Harris Canada  Mrs. Damas* (Honduras) Canada 8 (F) -/- English 14/- IIB Mr. Brown Canada      Mrs. Kyllonen*  Mexico 8 (F), 3 (F)  20+/- English 23/- IIB Mr. Kyllonen Canada  Mrs. Bedward*  Mexico 7 (M), 3 (F)  20+/- English 19/19 IIB Mr. Nakayama Canada  Mrs. Gordon   Canada 11 (F), 8 (F), 5 (M) 17/- English  Spanish 18/19 IIB Mr. Herrera Mexico      Mrs. Clavel  Mexico 8 (F) 11 Spanish  17 IIB Mrs. Galdámez* Mr. Galdámez Argentina 4 (F), 0.8 (M)  20+/5 Spanish  17 IIB Mrs. Nuñez  Mr. Pedroza Colombia 7 (F) 1 Spanish 23/17 I Mrs. Corral Mr. Novoa Colombia 18 (M), 16 (M), 9 (M) 3 Spanish 17/19 I Mrs. San Martín Mr. San Martín Colombia 6 (M), 10 (M) 5 Spanish 17/17 I Mrs. Vanegas  Mr. Vanegas Guatemala 18 (M), 17 (M), 13 (F) 4 Spanish 14/17 I                                                  7 A dash=information not available or not applicable. 8 The children were born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, until the family’s relocation to Vancouver.  37  Family5 Place of birth Children’s age and gender Female (F) / Male (M) Length of residence in Canada (years) Main language spoken at home Years of parents’ formal school-ing Phase Mrs. Ovando* Mr. Ovando Colombia 9 (M), 7 (M) 1 Spanish  17/17 I Mrs. Castillo Mr. Castillo Colombia 5 (M) 1 Spanish 16/16 I Mrs. Calles* Mr. Calles Guatemala 12 (F), 8 (F) 14 Spanish 14/- I Mrs. Amado9 El Salvador 8 (F), 14 (M) 19 Spanish 12 I Mrs. Delgado Mr. Delgado  El Salvador 10 (F), 9 (M), 7 (M) 20+ Spanish 16/12 I Mrs. Alarcón Guatemala 19 (M), 17 (M), 11 (F), 8 (M) 20 Spanish 6/6 I  Mr. Alarcón El Salvador Mrs. Batres* Mr. Batres  El Salvador 13 (M), 11 (M), 6 (M),  4 (M), 4 (M) 13 Spanish 8/- I Mrs. Enríquez*  Mexico 5 (M) 3/- Spanish 16/- I Mr. Telasnikov Russia  Mrs. Canales* Mr. Canales El Salvador 18 (M), 15 (M), (4= 20+) 10 Spanish 17/- I Mr. Flores El Salvador 19 (F), 19 (M), 16 (M), 16(M), 15 (M), 13 (F),  12 (M), (4= 20+) 11 Spanish 9 I Table 3.1 is organized by the families’ level of involvement in the study. The three case families participated in all phases of the study and are listed first (in bold). These are followed by families who participated in the broad survey of families (Phase I) and in the groups (Phase IIB). The families that only participated as additional group members (Phase IIB) are listed next. The final cluster shows the families that only participated in the broad survey of families (Phase I). Ten of the Phase I families (including the focus families) also participated in Phase IIB, totaling 24 families in Phase I. Table 3.2 shows the total number of families per phase. The numbers in parentheses are already included in Phase I. Table 3.2: Summary of Participating Families Phase I Phase IIA Phase IIB Total 24 (3=Focal families) (7=out of 24)    10 additional families 34                                                     9 Only one name=one-parent family. 38  3.3 The Fieldwork: Data Collection and Analysis Procedures As described above, the fieldwork for this study was divided into two distinct phases and one sub-phase. Phase I consisted mainly of in-depth ethnographic interviews with a group of 24 families. Phase IIA consisted of a multiple-case ethnography of three Hispanic families in their homes and in the three grassroots groups in which they participated. Phase IIB consisted of data collection with ten additional families participating in these groups, in addition to those group members who had already been part of Phase I. The total number of participating families who were also group members was 20. The total number of participants in the two phases was 34 families. 3.3.1 Phase I: Identifying Cases In this section, I describe the data collection procedures used in the initial survey of 24 Hispanic families. Figure 3.110 shows how the phases of the study were related and how Phase I fit within the study design. Phase I had two main objectives. One of the main objectives was to map the research population and obtain a sense of their experiences, ideologies and practices in relation to the research questions. As Figure 3.1 indicates, the other purpose this phase served was as the starting point for recruiting participants for the multi-site ethnographic work described in section 3.3.2.  3.3.1.1 Informed Consent and Assent Phase I began in April 2005 and ended in July of the same year (see Figure 3.2 for a timeline). Initially, I recruited 24 families for interviewing and preliminary observations, providing a broader survey of issues related to the research questions. Following university ethical guidelines (see Appendix B for Certificate of Approval), all parents provided their signed informed consent (and the children provided assent for participation) prior to being interviewed. The parents and their children were given enough time to read the information (forms provided in Spanish and in English) and I explained the purpose of my visits to children under 13 years old (see Appendix C for informed consent and assent forms and an oral script for children). Subsequently, the parents and their children were invited to ask any questions they might have regarding the research. Once I was satisfied that they understood                                                  10 Please note that the number of families in the two phases does not add up to 34 as several families in Phase IIB had participated in Phase I of the study. 39  all the information, and if they had no further questions, they were asked to sign the consent and assent forms and were given copies for their records.     Figure 3.1: Project Design  40    Figure 3.2: Fieldwork Timeline  3.3.1.2 Demographic Questionnaire Before starting the formal interview, the parents were asked to fill out a questionnaire containing general demographic questions as well as some preliminary questions regarding language use (see Appendix D). The parents were often asked to elaborate on some of the information provided in the questionnaire after its completion, which was used to formulate further questions during the interviews. 3.3.1.3 Interviews I used semi-structured interviews as I considered this strategy valuable in order to “respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent[s], and to new ideas on the topic” (Merriam, 1991, p. 74). These interviews were mostly conducted in the families’ homes and always in Spanish, lasting an average of two hours of recorded time, although the actual meetings lasted longer. In some cases, the interviews lasted as long as five hours and were conducted in two different sessions, usually a week apart. The first 30 to 60 minutes of each session were spent in casual conversation. In preparation for each interview, I reviewed the major areas of examination in “mental rehearsal” (Stake, 1995) in order to keep the key questions fresh in my mind. Questions were asked based on an interview guide that listed six different categories of questions: (1) demographic information; (2) children’s schooling; (3) family integration; (4) linguistic ideologies; (5) identity; and (6) home language use patterns. The children were usually present, and in some cases, they were briefly interviewed at that time. All the interviews were transcribed. Interview excerpts included in this dissertation were double checked against the recording and translated into English by the researcher.  41  3.3.1.4 Observations Preliminary observations of family interactions took place before, during and after the interviews. These observations provided additional important data and insights about the families’ language and cultural practices and served to verify the accuracy of the information collected during interviews (Maxwell, 1996).  3.3.1.5 Fieldnotes Condensed written field notes were taken throughout the entire fieldwork, particularly during the interviews and observations, and short digitally-recorded memos were produced upon leaving the site. These notes were expanded as soon as possible after each session.  3.3.1.6 Fieldwork Journal In addition to fieldnotes collected during observations and interviews, I kept a dated diary file on my computer in which I kept a log of my experiences in the field, reactions to informants or information, and any other ideas that emerged during the research period. Representing the “personal side of fieldwork” (Spradley, 1980, p. 71), this journal also became a type of brainstorming technique that allowed me to “think on screen.” It also assisted me in the process of analysis and interpretation of data (Duff, 2008a). 3.3.2 Phase IIA: Participant Observation In the course of Phase I, several families were invited to participate in Phase IIA of the study. The main criteria for selection included the families’ willingness to become fully involved in the study for over a year, and having a family composition including children of school age, length of residence in Canada between four and ten years, parents sharing a similar ethnolinguistic background and not being refugee claimants. Although I had originally planned to select up to six families as case studies for Phase II,11 and many families had agreed to take part, only three were selected due to an unexpected outcome in Phase I, which was the serendipitous uncovering of grassroots groups; small clusters of community networks characterized by relationships based on shared cultural affinities (Milroy, 1980), which modified the research design. These clusters were small grassroots groups formed, funded and operated by parents with the mandate to transmit the language and culture to their children. Three families were selected for ethnographic participant                                                  11 The original research design did not include a Phase IIB, as the discovery of the groups was part of the findings in Phase I. 42  observation based on the families’ enthusiasm and their fulfillment of the criteria stated above. The three families were from Guatemala, Peru and Mexico and the groups they participated in were El Grupo Scout Vistas, El Centro de Cultura y Arte Latinoamericano (henceforth El Centro de Cultura), and La Casa Amistad (The Vistas Scout Group, The Latin American Centre for Culture and the Arts, and Friendship House), which became the main research sites. These families agreed to take part in various types of data collection over a period of approximately one year (Phase IIA). Duranti (1997) argues that in ethnography, “the observation of a particular community is not attained from a distant and safe point but by being in the middle of things, that is, by participating in as many social events as possible” (p. 89). Therefore, participant observation requires being with the people studied and observing them in their activities. Participant observation in the families’ homes and in the groups in which they participated started in September 2005 and ended in October 2006 (see Figure 3.2 for a timeline). The three main research sites were located in three different municipalities of Metro Vancouver. La Casa Amistad meeting place was located in an affluent neighbourhood close to the university. El Grupo Scout Vistas met after hours in a public secondary school in a municipality about 30 kilometers from the university and El Centro de Cultura families met in a community centre owned by a municipality, also located about 30 kilometers from the university. 3.3.2.1 Data Collection in Homes 3.3.2.1.1 Audio and Video Recordings Once the case families had been selected, data collection resumed in September 2005 and continued until October 2006. Although I had initially planned to perform regular home observations, it was not practical due to the families’ multiple commitments and the children’s various extracurricular activities. Thus, direct home observations were somewhat limited and were often not recorded. However, an arrangement was made with all three families in which they would record home interactions themselves using recording equipment I provided to them. Therefore, two families each provided about five hours of self-recorded interactions during different family activities, particularly dinner time and children’s free play. One of the families provided one hour of audio recording as well as two hours of video recording. Although these home-recorded data were not analyzed in their 43  entirety for this dissertation, they were nonetheless used to raise issues for discussion during interviews and helped contextualize the families’ home life and language use. 3.3.2.1.2 Interviews with Parents In the participant observation phase, informal and formal in-depth semi-structured ethnographic interviews were conducted with the case study families, usually with both parents together. The interview format was similar to the interviews in Phase I, but attempted to probe issues more in-depth. The home observations and self-recordings were invaluable sources of information in preparing these interviews as home language practices, ideologies and other issues began to be made apparent. Also the results of the initial interviews were used in selecting issues to address in subsequent interviews in an iterative manner. Thus, after the Phase I interviews were conducted, interview guides with the three families varied considerably depending on their own particularities and experiences. In two of the three families, a visiting grandparent was also interviewed. Altogether, I made an average of eight home visits and five interviews per family (excluding the interviews with grandparents). 3.3.2.1.3 Interviews with Children  Toward the end of the fieldwork, a second set of interviews was conducted with the children. These interviews, conducted in Spanish, were short (about 30 minutes each), casual and focused (see Appendix E for interview guide). During these interviews the children were asked questions in six areas: (1) cultural preferences in such things as food, television, music, and reading; (2) school experiences; (3) activities with their parents; (4) attitudes and perceptions about Spanish and bilingualism; (5) relationships with their peers; and (6) identity issues. The purpose of asking about these areas was to obtain a detailed profile of the children’s lives within and outside the home, which included their affiliation with their parents’ cultures and cultural practices vis-à-vis those of their peers, their attitudes about the languages in their lives and their aspirations for the future. 3.3.2.1.4 Parents’ Reflections Parents were asked to write a type of acculturation and language socialization reflection journal. They were encouraged to write weekly or bi-weekly journal entries about their experiences with language in the home and outside the home, although in practice, their contributions were less frequent. The objective of this was to capture the families’ perceptions of their experiences of language use, tensions, critical incidents and explicit 44  socialization as these took place. The parents sent their reflections as e-mail messages to me, and in one instance, a parent hand-wrote these reflections during the family’s two-month stay with family in Mexico. 3.3.2.1.5 Children’s Language Samples  I collected language samples of the children who were of school-age (see Appendix F for written samples in Spanish). These included written and spoken samples in both languages as a way of assessing their bilingual and biliterate abilities. These samples were elicited through the use of wordless picture story books for children, such as, Frog, where are you? (Mayer, 1969), which tells a story in 24 pictures. This technique has become a standard of sorts for the study of narratives. After the pioneering work of Berman and Slobin (1987, 1994) who originally used the frog story design, frog stories continue to be widely used by investigators in order to elicit narrative descriptions (see e.g., Bamberg, 1985, 1987; Polinsky, in press; Slobin, 2003, 2004; Strömqvist & Verhoeven, 2004; Tanangkingsing, 2004; Tatsumi, 1997). Frog stories were also used by Schecter and Bayley (1997, 2002) in their ethnographic study of the language socialization of Mexican-descent families in the United States. Although the language samples were not part of the formal analysis in this dissertation, they became an important method of language ability verification. 3.3.2.2 Participant Observation in Grassroots Groups Participant observation in the three grassroots groups took place from September 2005 to October 2006 (see Figure 3.2), except for July and August when all three groups cancelled their meetings for the summer. During the regular session period, I made weekly visits to all three groups, averaging about 18 visits per group, which included going on eight fieldtrips with the Scout group. However, during certain short periods of time I only visited two of the groups at a time. For instance, there was a period of about two months from January to March 2006 when the schedules of two of the groups clashed. Other times, sessions were cancelled for various reasons. For instance, El Grupo Scout Vistas met in a school and on days the school was officially closed, they could not meet. However, when British Columbia teachers went on strike for about two weeks in October 2005, the leaders made arrangements for meeting elsewhere.  The extent of my involvement with people and in the activities I observed in the three groups varied along a continuum. In El Centro de Cultura, I was a rather passive participant, 45  making me more of an observer than a participant. I usually arrived a few minutes before the start of the sessions and interacted with the parents and children. When the parents set up their tables, chairs and other materials for their classes and put them away afterwards, I attempted to become involved as much as possible. Once classes started, however, I sat quietly close to one or two groups taking notes and audio-recording. I usually recorded two classes at the same time and occasionally took digital pictures of the sessions.  In La Casa Amistad, my participant role was generally more active. I arrived early and interacted with the families, sometimes helping them supervise the children in the outdoor playground or in the indoor playroom. I helped with snack-time and with set up and clean up. Once activities started, I sometimes sat with the group of children at a round table with an audio-recording device and interacted with the children and/or the parent conducting the activity when invited. Other times, I placed the recording device strategically and then sat close to the table to observe the activities and take notes. Occasionally, the parent conducting the activity asked me for some minor assistance, suggestion or question about language (e.g., vocabulary). At times, parents also asked me to supervise groups of children or even to take care of a baby for a while.   Before I started my participant observation in the Scout group, and in addition to the informed consent forms I provided to parents, one of the leaders asked me to write a letter addressed to the group explaining my project and requesting permission to conduct fieldwork. This letter was read to the parents in a meeting, officially instituting me as a researcher and outsider. However, a few weeks later I was already a complete participant. Part of the reason for this shift of role was that two of my own children joined the group when my participant observation work started in September 2005. Because the activities were almost exclusively conducted by the leaders, parents mingled while waiting for their children. As time passed, the parents and I built good rapport and unwittingly I became one of them as my observer role faded and my participation became as active as that of the other parents. Every week I attempted to observe and record the activities or to find a quiet corner to write my fieldnotes, but very often, a parent approached me with conversation topics or a request to run an errand. Many times I felt frustration at seeing my researcher’s role being denied in the group. However, despite the interruptions I eventually managed to collect large amounts of audio-recorded data from the indoor activities, parent meetings, and fieldtrips. 46  Additionally, I also collected hundreds of digital pictures and video clips from the various types of activities.  Once I had built enough rapport with the participants in the three groups, I invited the parents to take part in formal interviews. These shared some similarities with the interviews conducted in Phase I, but only lasted about one hour and focused mainly on language and cultural beliefs, ideologies and practices and on their participation in the groups (see Appendix G for questions related to group participation). Moreover, I collected documentation related to the formation and operation of the grassroots groups when made available by the parents. Finally, during my participant observation in the groups I also used the data collection strategies already described above: demographic, family orientation and language use questionnaires, fieldnotes, and fieldwork journal. Table 3.3 shows a summary of the data collection strategies and data set. Table 3.3: Summary of Ethnographic Record Data collection strategies Data collection period (April 2005-October 2006) Data Data use Demographic questionnaire Ongoing  -31 completed questionnaires  -Participant profile generation -Interview question generation Interviews with Phase I families  April-July 2005 -Audio-recorded and transcribed interviews -29 interviews in total -2 hours average each  -Selection of cases -Mapping population re: topic -Cross-case analysis -Viewpoint triangulation Interviews with Phase IIA parents (case-study families) September 2005-October 2006 -Audio-recorded and transcribed interviews -15 interviews in total -1 hour average each  -Part of main thematic analysis -In-depth, longitudinal orientation -Viewpoint triangulation Interviews with Phase IIA children (case-study families) September 2005-October 2006 -Audio-recorded and transcribed interviews -10 interviews in total -0.5 hours average each  -Language proficiency verification -Part of main thematic analysis  -Viewpoint triangulation Interviews with additional group co-participants (Phase IIB) January-May 2006 -Audio-recorded and transcribed interviews -11 interviews in total12 -1.4 hours average each -Part of main content analysis  -Holistic/thick description preparation -Contextualization -Viewpoint triangulation                                                  12 This total does not include interviews with parents who were members of the groups, as they were interviewed as part of Phase I. 47  Data collection strategies Data collection period (April 2005-October 2006) Data Data use Focus group interviews with VSB Multicultural Workers May-June 2005 -Audio-recorded interviews -3 interviews in total -1 hour average each -Identification of participants -Identification of issues -Viewpoint triangulation -Contextualization  Home observations Ongoing  -Fieldnotes  -Video: 2 hours in total -Audio recordings: 8 hours in total -Part of main discourse analysis  -In-depth, longitudinal orientation -Naturalistic language use analysis -Environmental triangulation Group observations Ongoing  -Fieldnotes -Video: 1.5 hours in total  -Audio recordings: 16 hours in total -Pictures: 842 -Part of main discourse analysis  -In-depth, longitudinal orientation -Naturalistic language use analysis -Environmental triangulation - Holistic/thick description preparation -Data analysis processes Fieldnotes Ongoing -Written text: 30 pages -Audio memos: 7 hours in total -Data analysis processes  -Holistic/thick description preparation Fieldwork journal Ongoing -Written text: 62 pages -Data analysis processes -Confirmability: audit trail, triangulation and reflexivity Parents’ reflections Ongoing -E-mail messages and hand-written notes -14 reports in total -Methods and data triangulation -Clarification /verification of issues during analysis processes Children’s Language Samples November 2005-April 2006 -Written: 12 samples -Recorded: 12 samples -Language proficiency verification -Data triangulation Familism questionnaire February-November 2006 -16 completed questionnaires -Verification of emerging themes -Data triangulation Language use questionnaire February-November 2006 -16 completed questionnaires -Verification of emerging themes -Interview question generation -Data triangulation    48  3.3.3 Phase IIB: Data Collection with Additional Group Co-Participants As with the discovery of the grassroots groups during Phase I, Phase IIB was a natural outgrowth of Phase IIA (see Figure 3.1). Once participant observation in the groups had been underway for sometime (at least three months) and I had established relationships with other families participating in the groups, I invited them to take part in interviews and fill out questionnaires.13 This sub-phase consisted of data collection that included interviews,14 questionnaires, and audio and video recordings of group activities. 3.4 Data Analysis Figure 3.3 shows a summary of the data analysis processes used in this study. Data analysis was an ongoing process that involved four main interrelated and recurring stages. It began with the generation of data and ended with the writing of the report. However, the different stages were revisited numerous times throughout the entire process. As soon as data collection started, I began to write fieldnotes and to make entries into a fieldwork journal. Both of these documents became important for recording various types of reflections and ideas, including preliminary analytic summaries. At this time I also started organizing and transcribing the digital and cassette recordings of interviews. Both transcribed and untranscribed data were organized in different groupings chronologically, but also by other criteria such as research stage, data collection method, grassroots group, type of data, etc. Interview data were coded and organized in categories from which themes emerged. Naturally-ocurring interactions were transcribed in detail (i.e., noting overlaps and pauses) and grouped by activity. These were coded and categorized following a similar procedure as the interviews. In the writing stage I gathered all my notes from fieldnotes, fieldwork journal, data coding and other sources. During the writing process, I had to continually repeat the above stages as it became necessary.  The three cases were analyzed keeping in focus the overriding theoretical proposition (Yin, 1994), language socialization, which guided the data collection and selection. Below I will describe the procedures for analyzing the main sources of data: thematic analysis of formal interviews and discourse analysis of natural interactions.                                                  13 All the families had previously consented to participating in the study as members of the groups, but their new roles included more active involvement in the study. 14 All interviews were conducted in Spanish. However, one participant, Mrs. Bedward, chose to switch to English for part of the interview. 49   Figure 3.3: Data Analysis Processes  3.4.1 Thematic Analysis The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed in Spanish. Formal coding of these began in June 2005 using the qualitative data analysis software package N6, at that time the latest version of NUD*IST (Non-Numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorizing), which allows researchers to manage, code, analyze and report on text data. This computer program was used to help in the coding and identification of emerging themes across the interviews. In April 2006, I converted and transferred the NUD*IST project into NVivo 7, the newest version of N6 and NVivo 2 combined, and coded the remaining data using this program. The coding of each interview was performed using the following steps: 1. Listening to audio recording: I listened to each recording in order to recapture the original atmosphere and character of the interview and to note important contextual features 2. Reading fieldnotes: I read the fieldnotes focusing on initial ideas and looking for additional details 50  3. Listening to audio-recorded memos: I listened to the memos that were recorded immediately after each interview where I captured my first impressions of the information 4. Reading fieldwork journal: I reviewed the notes contained in my research diary looking for any analytic thoughts I had recorded 5. Manual coding: I read a printout of the transcript, taking notes in the margins and assigning descriptive codes 6. Using NVivo: I imported the interview transcripts to NVivo and entered the codes as free nodes15 7. Organizing free nodes in NVivo: Once all the interview coding had been entered in NVivo, I created tree nodes and organized the free nodes into child nodes within the tree nodes. 8. Verifying coding: I went over the child nodes to verify that free nodes had been classified correctly. I also merged child nodes as necessary, creating larger categories, until a small number of broad themes emerged    Throughout this process, the approach used with the information was that of inductive analysis, in which the themes and categories emerge from the data rather than being imposed on them prior to collection. As Palys (1997) describes it, qualitative study is iterative in nature. “An iterative process is one that is cyclical, but not merely repetitive. Instead, the term also connotes increasing sophistication or change” (p. 298). This brings images of a spiral making its way deeper and deeper into the data. An emergent and iterative approach was therefore used in the data collection and analysis stages, in an attempt to go ever deeper into participants’ experiences during interviews. The translated transcriptions were then analyzed and categorized according to Bogdan and Biklen’s (1998) guidelines for analyzing qualitative research data as well as some of the steps suggested by Ryan and Bernard (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). These procedures served in the development of coding categories and the identification of emergent themes. 3.4.2 Discourse Analysis Although many types of data were collected through participant observation, the main forms of data used in the discourse analysis of group activities and other naturalistic interactions were audio and video recordings. The audio and video recorded interactions were transcribed in the languages in which they occurred, between January and July 2007                                                  15 A node is a collection of references about a specific theme, place, person or other area relevant to the analysis 51  (see Appendix H for transcription conventions). As a supporting tool for the transcription process of these data, I used Transcriber, a freely-available software package utilized for segmenting, labeling, and transcribing speech, particularly when detailed transcription is required.  Once transcribed, these data were analyzed using techniques primarily from the ethnography of communication in combination with analytic tools from other interactional analysis traditions, such as Conversation Analysis (CA) (Sacks, 1995; Schegloff, 1968) and Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) (C. Baker, 2004; Sacks, 1972). According to Duranti (1997), an ethnography of communication analysis requires the researcher “to learn to understand what the participants in the interactions we study are up to, what counts as meaningful for them, what they are paying attention to, and for what purposes” (p. 8, italics in original). From this perspective, I attempted to describe and interpret the language use patterns of the participants in natural interaction, particularly focusing on the language and cultural ideologies to which they oriented and the identities indexed by their language behavior. This micro-analysis was combined with the macro-analysis of life trajectories, beliefs, ideologies and goals articulated in the families’ interviews and in other sources of data in order to obtain a more holistic understanding of the factors influencing their socialization. The naturalistic interactions were carefully examined through the language socialization lens in chronological order and through several iterations. This analysis was conducted in the following steps: 1. Scanning data: I examined all the naturalistic interactions several times (audio and video) in order to note important contextual features and to obtain a preliminary sense of the language socialization patterns 2.