Aims and objectives: This study aims to explore parental emotions in heritage language maintenance and to examine ways in which parents’ emotions interplay with their language ideologies, maintenance practices, and children’s language proficiencies. Methodology: I conducted an ethnographic qualitative study of 12 Chinese immigrant families including 13 parents and 13 children. The study focuses on parents who brought their children into Australia when they were between ages 3 and 9. Data and analysis: Data were collected through open-ended interviews, informal conversations, observations, evidence of literacy practices and postings on WeChat.¹ Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. The generated themes relate to emotions, ideologies, practices, and proficiencies in heritage language. Findings/conclusions: Findings show that maintaining heritage language in immigrant and minority contexts is fraught with negative emotions such as irritation, regret, guilt, anguish, loss, insecurity, and shame, but this is complemented by a sense of accomplishment, fulfilment, and pride. Parental emotions, whether positive or negative, which are shaped by language ideologies of Chinese as identity, family tie, and profit, are often elicited by children’s language behaviours and their proficiency outcomes. The study suggests that children’s heritage language proficiencies are significant for the wellbeing of immigrant families. Originality: Emotion-relevant studies in heritage language research have largely focused on children and other learners in classroom settings, with heavy reliance on survey data and statistical analysis. Few studies have explored parental emotions regarding heritage language maintenance in the home domain or documented the relevant nuanced experiences. This study makes an in-depth ethnographic investigation of various types of emotions of family language policy (FLP) in parental discourses and situates parents’ emotions in their own language ideologies and their children’s language practices. Significance/implications: This ethnography fills a gap by providing a realistic understanding of the link between parental emotions, their language ideologies and maintenance practices, and their children’s language behaviours and proficiencies in transnational contexts. Children’s use of, and proficiency in, their heritage language is significant for the socio-emotional wellbeing of immigrant/minority parents and their families and has implications for language policy makers and heritage language education.

Emotionality is increasingly given prominence in the field of language acquisition and socialization in migration contexts. This cross-sectional study explores the emotional experiences of Chinese and African immigrant families in their practices of maintaining their children's heritage languages. We used open-ended interviews, field notes from informal conversations and observations, photographic evidence of children's literacy practices, and language portrait (LP) descriptions, to collect data. Results from an ethnographic analysis of the data revealed a whole range of negative and positive parental emotions (e.g., anxiety, loss, shame vs. enjoyment, accomplishment, and pride), in the discourse of maintaining heritage and minority languages. We discuss the language emotions, whether positive or negative, in light of language ideologies, which specifically points to the significance of profit discourse in the formation of family language policies (FLPs). This materialistic valorization reveals the complexities of power relations between English and minority languages, between Chinese and African languages, and within various Chinese and African languages. Consequently, the distinct hierarchies between English and minority languages and the hidden layers within minority languages further legitimate diasporic ideologies of Chinese and African parents in terms of the emotionality associated with prioritizing, maintaining, and forgoing languages. These findings suggests that language emotionality is of vital importance to the psycho-social wellbeing of immigrant families and has practical implications for policymakers and heritage language research.

This study explores the emotional dimensions of language within three Chinese–Australian families raisingMandarin English bilingual children. Employing ethnographic methods including interviews, observations, and the collection of literacy evidence, it delves into the families’ migration stories, language ideologies, and emotional experiences. Additionally, the study examines the factors influencing family language policies (FLPs) and the emotional climate surrounding language within these households. The research reveals that these families grappled with the dual challenges of maintaining their children’s heritage Chinese while ensuring their competitiveness in mainstream English. These societal and familial pressures conditioned parents’ emotions and the decisions they make regarding FLPs. The study uncovers the intricate interplay between parents’ emotional states, their children’s bilingual dynamics, changes in FLPs within the hierarchically constructed linguistic landscape. It underscores the significance of power relations in shaping FLPs and highlights the pivotal role of children’s heritage language bilingualism in contributing to the overall well being of the immigrant families.

Purpose: A new Parent Support Worker (PSW) service was piloted in three Australian hospitals. This study assesses the feasibility and acceptability (including preliminary effectiveness) of the service in supporting cancer patients with children. Methods: A multi-site, mixed-methods study collected quantitative and qualitative data on the effectiveness of the service (pre post-test, n = 36), qualitative and quantitative data on acceptability of the service (survey, n = 43), and qualitative data on acceptability (semi-structured interviews, n = 13). Feasibility was assessed through rates of service uptake amongst referred parents. Results: Of 1133 parents referred, 810 (71%) accepted to receive the service, suggesting high interest in PSW support. Interviewees likewise reported that the service was accessible and facilitated further referrals, indicating good feasibility. Surveys completed three months after accessing PSW support showed high acceptability and satisfaction. Additionally, there was preliminary evidence of service impacts: parents’ distress, parenting concerns, parenting efficacy, and stress about situations of concern improved significantly from pre- to post-service (all p < 0.005). Interviewees further described how their emotional coping and confidence to support and communicate with their children had improved through contact with the service. Conclusion: The PSW service, integrated into a novel cross-sector model of care, showed to be feasible and acceptable to parent patients and their partners and improved psychological and parenting outcomes. The study suggests refinements to the service and the need for future larger studies to explore the effectiveness of the service in improving parents’ outcomes. This study complements previous evidence on the implementation of the PSW service in hospitals.