Multilingual Mothering: Shifting Emotional Connections to a Heritage Language After the Transition to Motherhood (Matrescence)

Heritage Language Maintenance and Emotions

Scholarly definitions of “heritage language” and “heritage language speaker” vary considerably across disciplines. This study draws on Valdés’s (2001) definitions: any immigrant language spoken by immigrants and their children; offspring of first- and second-generation immigrants who maintain some connection with their “heritage language.” The emphasis is on a familial link (Little, 2023) and one that highlights an HL as being acquired at home but not limited to the home domain and ranging in proficiency from limited to fluent (Wang & Hatoss, 2024). In this context, “L1” and “heritage language” are used interchangeably although they may differ for participants who have multiple L1s acquired in childhood within the family context. Heritage languages play a vital role in cultural preservation, intergenerational continuity and emotional attachments to people, places and the individual/personal and collective selves (Fatima & Nadeem, 2025) and embody the traditions, emotions and histories of communities (Hollebeke et al., 2023).

The family is a dynamic system where parents navigate emotional, cognitive, and sociocultural dimensions of multilingualism (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009; Fogle, 2012; King, 2016; Pavlenko, 2004; Tannenbaum, 2012). HLM is intertwined with language ideologies shaped by linguistic value, power relations, and parental beliefs (King et al., 2008; Kirsch, 2012; Schüpbach, 2009). In multilingual families—particularly where only one parent uses the HL—parents must navigate both ideological and practical tensions alongside family wellbeing (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020; Okita, 2002). Conflicting language ideologies within families may complicate practices and management (Curdt-Christiansen, 2016; King et al., 2008), while emotional and identity-related needs further shape family language practice decisions (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009; Schüpbach, 2009). For example, Kirsch (2012) found that the seven Luxembourgish mothers in the United Kingdom valued their HL but often compromised due to their children’s English-language preferences. Such tensions highlight the sociocultural, economic, and political forces influencing FLP (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020), and underscore the emotional dimensions of HL-related decisions (Wang et al., 2023). Emotions associated with HLM can be positive (pride, joy), negative (anxiety, guilt, loss) or mixed and/or conflicting and may influence shifts in caregivers’ ideologies and practices as they navigate competing pressures and expectations in private and public contexts (Li & Lin, 2025).

For instance, in a study on the HLM experience of 13 Chinese and 12 African families, a wide range of both negative (anger, disappointment, shame) and positive (joy, accomplishment and pride) emotions emerged (Wang et al., 2023). The negative emotions surfaced when expectations of HLM did not meet the reality of children’s behaviours and there was a perceived lack of societal support. The positive emotions were identified in parental discourses when participants were discussing children’s progress in fluency and/or literacy and when children acknowledged the shared endorsement of the HL.

The emotional scale ranging from pride (positive) to fear (negative) was echoed by Polish mothers in Rokita-Jaśkow and Panek (2025). In a study of 10 Polish mothers living abroad, five in transnational endogamous families and five in exogamous families, through semi-structured interviews, the mothers revealed they experience similar emotions: a feeling of pride in one’s identity and desire to pass on an HL in the family, while also acknowledging the feeling of fear that may turn into shame or guilt if the mothers are not successful at HL transmission. For these Polish mothers, the emotions, both negative and positive, result in a “great emotional burden that they must tackle” (Rokita-Jaśkow & Panek, 2025, p. 8).

Relatedly, in their longitudinal study on the emotional work of HLM, Li and Lin (2025) examine the emotional dimensions of HLM among 56 Chinese-Canadian families over 3 years, highlighting how Chinese immigrant parents experienced mixed emotions ranging from satisfaction, joy, and contentment to anxiety, stress, irritation, disappointment, guilt, and helplessness. The emotions were not static but evolving over time. Some parents transitioned from frustration to acceptance, while others moved from initial satisfaction to increasing anxiety and resignation. Societal pressures from the dominant English-speaking Canadian environment challenged parents’ values and assumptions, compelling them to reassess their goals often and limited access to Chinese language resources resulted in feelings of vulnerability and helplessness. The children’s progress, resistance, and/or acceptance of Chinese “stirred their parents’ emotions” creating a, “vivid emotional rollercoaster” for the parents where moments of pride were followed in quick succession by anger, sadness or frustration (p. 13).

Maternal Role in HLM

The role of HLM can impose normative burdens on mothers, both empowering and constraining their agency (Kroskrity, 2000). As the primary caregivers, mothers often bear the burden and responsibility of HLM and transmission (Hirsch & Kayam, 2020; Okita, 2002; Surrain, 2018). Mothers, irrespective of their bilingual proficiency, become the guardians of their children’s bilingualism (Piller & Gerber, 2018), especially in exogamous parenting partnerships (Rokita-Jaśkow & Panek, 2025). In addition, mothers’ language decisions are shaped by societal perceptions of “good” and “bad” parenting (King & Fogle, 2006). Surrain (2018) interviewed 14 Spanish-speaking Latina mothers in a small northeastern American city who perceived Spanish maintenance as integral to their maternal role, believing HL loss reflected negatively on them. Similarly, in her longitudinal work on 28 Japanese mothers raising multilingual children in the United Kingdom, Okita (2002) examined the emotional and physical caregiving, or “invisible work” the mothers assumed in order to balance family wellbeing and language development. The Japanese mothers shouldered the dual roles of both teacher and mother and their HLM was a component and responsibility of motherhood.

Language choices in the family may also be intertwined with broader notions of mothering and motherhood (Gogonas & Maligkoudi, 2022; Souza, 2015). Mills (2004) found that 10 bilingual Pakistani mothers in the West Midlands, UK, viewed HL transmission as a means of nurturing not only language but also religion, culture, and community affiliation, while also ensuring proficiency in the majority language for their children’s education. For the Pakistani mothers, the concepts of “mother tongue” and HL maintenance were linked with “motherly characteristics of nurturing” (Mills, 2004, p. 179).

Similarly, Lithuanian diaspora mothers in diverse global contexts in Ramonienė and Ramonaitė (2024) associated HL use with intergenerational continuity and highlighted the “naturalness” of using the language with their children. However, the same mothers also felt pressure to maintain Lithuanian and that the failure to do so was exclusively their responsibility. The perception of HLM as a primal responsibility of the mother was echoed in Hilbig et al. (2025) also with Lithuanian mothers living in Europe, who perceived passing on their HL to their children to be a “natural and embodied maternal act” (p. 5). The authors conducted in-depth interviews with five mothers who felt that as Lithuanian mothers, they should “naturally” transmit their Lithuanian identity and language to their children (Hilbig et al., 2025, p. 6). When expectation did not meet reality, the mothers were disappointed in themselves and feelings of guilt, self-blame, sorrow, a sense of deep inadequacy and deficiency emerged. The broader concept of performing motherhood in a specific language, or cultural framework, may also feel alienating or conflicting with a mother’s chosen parenting style (Ellis & Sims, 2022).

Research on multilingual fathers and HLM remains scarce due largely to the fact that mothers are still principal agents of HL transmission because of their roles as primary caregivers (Torsh, 2022). However, one study on seven Polish-speaking fathers in Melbourne, Australia, examined the role of fathers in HLM (Romanowski, 2022). Findings revealed that fathers, as primary agents who are deeply engaged in childcare and their children’s multilingualism, can also have profound influence on their children’s beliefs, values, attitudes and language use of the HL, highlighting the importance of access to resources, time and motivation for positive and successful HLM (Romanowski, 2022).

Mothers’ “Emotional Connection” to an HL

A mother’s desire to preserve an HL however, is not universal. The emotionality or emotional resonance of a language, or the perceived lack thereof, may lead a mother to reject a particular language, at least temporarily or within the context of mothering, and appeal to the language they feel they can express themselves in emotionally as a parent (Pavlenko, 2004). Motherhood may lead women to reevaluate their HL, sometimes considering it as cultural capital requiring protection (Iqbal, 2005; Mu, 2014; Spolsky, 2009). Other times, they may move away from an HL towards an LX if they feel the HL is associated with past experiences they wish to forget, including family trauma, linguistic oppression or xenophobia (Tannenbaum, 2012). A return to an HL after motherhood may trigger reconnection with childhood memories and affectionate expressions (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020; Pavlenko, 2004). Relatedly, emotionally charged expressions in an HL may be perceived by the mothers as more authentic and natural (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020; Pavlenko, 2004). Conversely, some mothers may deliberately shift towards an LX after becoming parents, seeking a sense of control in their new roles and “reinventing” their parenting personality (Pavlenko, 2004).

Furthermore, extended LX exposure may result in the forging of an emotional connection, especially if there is a shift in language dominance accompanied by L1 attrition (Dewaele, 2013; Ożańska-Ponikwia, 2019; Pavlenko, 2004). Through LX socialisation, individuals may develop multiple emotional connections to both an HL and an LX (Dewaele, 2004; Pavlenko, 2004). Caldwell-Harris (2014) suggests that emotional resonance arises from repeated use in emotionally significant contexts.

Drawing on the definition of language emotionality of Wang et al. (2023) as the “emotional nature or quality in relation to language acquisition and practices” (p. 3), the emotional connection to an HL in the present study refers to the language emotionality a mother considers towards her HL in the context of HLM and mothering. An “emotional connection” to a language (or lack thereof) is the perceived language emotionality of an HL with the emotions a mother may feel towards their HL. Inextricably linked with language emotionality, the language of emotion may be specified as a “feeling” or “emotion” like pride, frustration, anger and happiness (Wang, 2023; Wang et al., 2023). HLM initiates emotional responses in a variety of ways and brings with it a heavy psychological and social load that may lead to negative emotions, including anxiety and stress (Sevinç, 2016, 2020; Wang et al., 2023). Regardless of linguistic or cultural backgrounds, parents felt depressed and rejected if their children did not use the HL (De Houwer, 2017; Sevinç, 2020; Sevinç & Dewaele, 2018) and the parents’ expectations often conflicted with the children’s behaviours and attitudes, leading to emotionally laden conflict (Pavlenko, 2004; Sevinç, 2020).

Taken together, the studies reviewed provide insight into the relationships between heritage languages, emotions and in the way motherhood interacts, affects and is affected by both. While identifying that both linguistic and non-linguistic forces account for language choice, more studies are necessary to show the specific processes in how parents, especially mothers, make sense of their language emotionality and connection (or disconnection) with an HL after the transition to motherhood. The present work aims to extend the research on the emotions and experiences of mothers raising multilingual children and the maintenance and transmission of an HL in the family through the lens of mothering, by asking the following research questions:

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 291 mothers from over 36 different countries. Participants resided in countries including the United States (n = 52), the United Kingdom (n = 44), Switzerland (n = 42), Germany (n = 28), France (n = 17), Canada (n = 12) and Australia (n = 10). All other countries had fewer than 10 responses. The participants were born in 55 different countries: the United States (n = 53), Germany (n = 29), Poland (n = 22), Brazil (n = 15), France (n = 15), Italy (n = 14), Mexico (n = 13). All other countries had fewer than 10 responses. Many of the participants were raised multilingually from birth with multiple L1s and were both first- and second-generation HL users. Just over half of the mothers had one child (n = 125), followed closely by mothers with two children (n = 94), three (n = 27) and four children (n = 3). The questionnaire was distributed globally in English through Google Forms via parenting groups and networks and for this study, the focus is on one open-ended question from the questionnaire: “If your emotional connection to your L1 has changed since becoming a mother, please explain.”

Analysis

Reflexive thematic analysis (henceforth, reflexive TA) involved systematic processes of data coding to develop themes as patterns of shared meaning, underpinned by a “central organising concept” (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase approach to thematic analysis, the analytic process began with data familiarisation, followed by coding and recoding, theme development, revision and refinement in relation to the coded data and the entire dataset and finally, producing the report. Reflexive TA was chosen for its flexibility in allowing both an inductively and deductively developed analysis, capturing both semantic and latent meanings, and offering both descriptive and interpretive accounts of the data. In times of questioning what was a potential theme and subsequently its development, Patton’s (1990) “dual criterial for judging categories” was employed: examining internal consistency within themes while also zooming out to observe external consistency between themes. This dual approach highlights how codes are appropriate to inform a theme, and how a theme is appropriate to inform the interpretation of the dataset (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

The reflexive approach to TA emphasises the researcher’s active role in knowledge production and reflects the researcher’s interpretive analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022; Byrne, 2022). Through the analysis of the dataset and the use of the participants’ quotes, it was observed how mothers resist, accept and negotiate discourses of caregiving and responsibility around HLM and transmission through their own perceived connection to multiple languages. Thus, Care and Responsibility became the central organising concept with four final themes captured from the analysis.

Theme 1: Practical, Prominent and (Un)Natural

An initial analysis revealed ideologies of value, appreciation, strength and (more) importance around the HL after the transition to motherhood. For some, children were the conduits for reconnection, highlighting both the practical (frequency elevates importance), but also the emotional mother-child bond: the desire to use the HL as it was the more emotional or “natural” language.

At times, it was unclear what came first: the increase in frequency of use and subsequent intensification of the feeling of importance of the HL, or the perceived value of the HL that resulted in an increase in use. Mothers reported ‘falling in love again’ with an HL or ‘rediscovering’ their love for it after motherhood. Mothers also reported speaking more in their HL since having children, even when their HL was no longer their dominant language:

I have actually gotten better at my L1 language as it had been put in the back burner for some time. Also, I learned new words in my L1 that I never had to learn before becoming a mother. I feel more emotionally connected to my L1 since having kids since it is the language I express myself to them with. (Children: 8 and 5; Spanish HL)

For one mother, increased frequency resulted in a reconnection to the “naturalness” of the HL, and the creation of an emotional connection between mother and child:

I stopped speaking my L1 when I got together with my partner and we didn’t live in my country . . . However, when I got pregnant, I started speaking to my belly in my L1 and it became very natural to speak my L1 again. I loved that connection with my child and couldn’t imagine having it in another language. (Child: 2.5, expecting second; French HL)

One mother highlighted her newfound connection to the HL, one she believes she was about to lose had she not become a mother. She referred to her LX as “my language,” a possessive stance normally reserved for an HL:

After 6 years in US/Mexico and 5 of those with my partner with whom I only speak English, English became more and more my language. If I wouldn’t talk to my family, I wouldn’t use it at all. It started to become harder for me to speak it without thinking. Some people even told me, I developed an accent. When my daughter was born, it didn’t come naturally to me to speak to her in my L1. It felt weird. Same for my partner. We both had to make an effort. But now it’s completely normal for both of us and obviously our daughter. I even speak to other children in German if I don’t think about it. I definitely found back the connection to my language that I was about to lose. (Child: 2-year-old; German HL)

However, the shift was at times, away from the HL and towards an LX after motherhood. This shift was especially evident when the participants reported the LX as their dominant language before motherhood, or if it was the language used with the co-parenting partner. For some, the shift towards an LX only occurred well into motherhood and not immediately after the transition. The language practice in the family shifted the mothers’ ideologies around which language was most important for not only the family, but also for them. Prolonged socialisation in an LX meant its emotional resonance became just as strong, if not more:

Since my son’s dominant language is my L2, and the predominant language used between my partner and I has always been my L2, I guess the emotional bonds have heightened my need (or ease) to express myself in the L2 for different reasons, the first and foremost being to make sure I am fully understood and not misinterpreted. Then it just grew on me. (Child: age not identified; Brazilian Portuguese HL)

The notions around “naturally” and the importance of intergenerational relationships were echoed by another mother in a different context. She too had spent most of her adult life being English-dominant except for communicating with family in Korea:

Although my L1 is not English, my adult life has been dominantly using English only, except when calling my family in Korea. I also work in English so my Korean level actually went slightly down I feel. Having said that, since becoming a parent, I feel strongly about their identity as Korean beginning from the language. I also think Korean is the type of language that is challenging to acquire at a later stage (eg. pronunciation) so I am hoping they learn naturally and also are able to communicate with my extended family in Korea. (Children, both 3.5 years old; Korean HL)

Motherhood was a catalyst for using Korean more in order for her children to learn it “naturally” from her with connotations to a “mother tongue,” learnt from the mother. Language ideology was linked with identity and considered a starting point for the children’s link to her Korean linguistic and cultural heritage that was identified as also being the children’s (inherited) identity.

Theme 2: My Heritage, My Language: Memory and Duty

My Heritage, My Language: Memory and Duty brings to the forefront the past, present and future of HL. The affiliative link of the term “heritage language” is at the foreground with participants reporting their HL was a “part of them,” especially their past and the childhoods they wished to recreate for their children. Some participants used “our” for heritage and linguistic identity, as if the mother and child were one. But with this affiliation to the past came a sense of duty. Mothers reported the need to “pass on my roots.” Even for participants whose LX was more important than the HL, the transition to motherhood highlighted the ties between culture and language, how not passing on a HL could result in the loss of not only language, but a culture:

My L2 became more important to me. I never really thought much about my L1 as something valuable to me. It was one of the languages I learnt at first and could express myself most fully. However since I had my child(ren) I feel sad thinking that my children might not be able to be fluent speakers in my L1. I try very hard to speak to them in L1 as much as possible and to teach them reading/speaking. It feels like part of my heritage and my personality is locked in my L1 and I want my children to experience it. (Children: 9, 6 and 3-year-old twins; Polish HL)

With the possessive stance came responsibility. Mothers noted the duty of HL transmission and the feeling of being the only one who could take on the task. Their shifting connections towards or away from an HL were eclipsed by their self-perceived roles as both mothers and teachers. Several participants also reported feeling the need to “protect” and “preserve” their HL. Even when participants acknowledged their heritage is not necessarily their child’s heritage, there was still a felt responsibility:

I feel like a custodian on my native language in a foreign land, making sure that my kids learn it in the highest and purest form but also with all nuances, like idioms and regional dialects. I want to make sure that, through the language, they will be able to access & deconstruct Polish culture one day, if they choose so. After all they self-identify as Polish Mexicans but the reality is that they are growing up as Americans and they have never been to Poland (or Mexico) thus far. (Children: 8.5-year-old and a 4.5-year-old; Polish HL)

Theme 3: Expectations and Enough: Letting Go and Coming Together

The reconnection to an HL and the subsequent feeling of responsibility coincided with a disconnect between reality and expectation, especially as children got older. Initially, there may have been a connection to an HL immediately after motherhood. And even though the same language emotionality remained as the child got older, the gulf between reality and expectation widened, resulting in using the HL less than anticipated. Often, the change was a result of the child starting childcare or formal schooling.

As one mother recounts, in the beginning, she used her HL exclusively with her child. But at 18 months, the child began attending a daycare and quickly learnt English, the language that became her dominant one despite initially being dominant in her mother’s and father’s HLs. The mother began to feel guilty despite having done everything she could to expose the child to her HL, and the communication became “a struggle.” Letting go of expectations, even inadvertently, brought the mother closer to a desired FLP:

I feel a bit guilty for not sticking to a plan on teaching my daughter to be fluent in Polish. Before she went to daycare (at 18 months), I spoke to her almost exclusively in Polish as I was with her all the time, and my husband spoke to her in Slovak . . . Given this situation, I feel a more sentimental connection to my L1 now, like I want to hold on to it and treasure it and pass it on to my daughter. It is a struggle though as she is 4 now and her language skills (in English) are exceptional, so it’s rewarding to have real conversations with her. Speaking in Polish to her slows down communication, but I keep trying . . . (Mother of a 4-year-old, Polish HL)

When mothers feel solely responsible for HL and consider it a reflection of their mothering, they may feel a sense of guilt or frustration when reality and expectation are mismatched. Some mothers reported feeling as if they were “forcing” their HL on their children. One participant noted that when her children did not use the HL, she felt a “resentment” towards the language. Another mother reflected on how it “hurts” that her children are not able to use and express themselves in her HL. Other mothers acknowledged the reality of various external forces, most out of their control, and eventually began to focus on what was “enough”:

I had hoped that my children would be fluent if I speak L1 to my children but even if it’s my first language with them, it has proven to be difficult. I’ve had to step back and accept that it is good enough if they have a positive connection with it and understand almost everything when I speak. My L1 is a difficult and very different language from all the other languages and as my children already using four languages on a daily basis, I have never wanted to put pressure on them to learn my language. (Children: 11 and 14; Finnish HL)

A disconnection to a HL sometimes occurred for the mother to stay emotionally connected with her children in their dominant language, the mother’s LX:

I have decided to relax in asking them to always use my L1 when talking to me because I want them to be connected to me in expressing their feelings and sometimes directing them to speak my L1 language interfered with they train of thought. I am less attached to my language as I used to be, I am starting to think communication is what matters and not so much the language we use. (Children: 14 and 11; Spanish HL)

For some, a shift away from their HL happened when children began to use the LX more often, especially after starting school. The participants reported an all or nothing way of considering multilingualism, having to make a choice between an HL and LX rather than accommodating multiple languages. Even with the acceptance of a shift towards an LX, there was no mention of altering the FLP in such a way where it did not have to be one or the other. One mother made the change to using her LX for fear of losing the “emotional battle” and being “rejected”:

. . . When my children were born I spoke to them exclusively in my L1 Portuguese until they started talking English fluently. They then lost interest in talking to me in my L1 as they gradually became much more at ease and confident in English (attending and English-speaking nursery and primary school). With the fear of losing this emotional battle and not wanting to be rejected I didn’t pursue the bilingualism and resigned to English. (Children: 16 and 18 years old; Portuguese HL)

Similarly, after 9 years of mothering in her HL, another participant switched to an LX to achieve a closer connection with her child. Creating the “intimacy” she wished to have in the same language was the caveat for revising the FLP and amending her own ideologies around HL transmission:

I raised my infant through 9 years old as if English didn’t exist as an option. I did feel a space between my son and I because of the limitations in my L2. I’d see the intimacy he could achieve with his grandma and we couldn’t have that. We are now privately speaking English and there is definitely more origins connection, at least for me. I am slowly letting go and easing into a revised vision of the language ideology for my family. (Mother of a 9-year-old; Spanish HL)

Theme 4: Acts of Mothering: Re-Enacting and Reimagining

A “language of mothering” was noted, especially around caregiving acts like soothing, singing, coddling and baby talk. Common parenting emotions like affection and discipline were also mentioned. The experience of mothering was linked for some to their own childhoods, but rather than a general nostalgia, it was about how they were mothered in an HL around acts of care:

I have found that singing songs from my childhood to my child is much more tender to me now that I am a mother than I would have imagined. I hear my mother’s or grandmother’s voice in some of the things I say to my child now and in the way I say them. (Child: 2-year-old; English HL)

Similarly, for another, the HL represented the way her mother, now deceased, had communicated with her. This form of care was the caveat for the reconnection to her HL:

. . . Before becoming a mother I used to worry that passing on the minority language (German) to any children I might have would not feel natural. As it turned out, the opposite was true, and becomes more true every day. As I had been consistently spoken to in German by my (German but also trilingual) mother since birth, it has been quite natural for me to rediscover German as the language of motherhood. The fact that my mother passed away only six months before I became pregnant also perhaps strengthened my resolve to pass on her first language—and her strong belief in multilingualism—to my child. (Mother to a 4-year-old; German HL)

One mother noted her use of multiple languages depending on the acts of mothering she was performing: German, her LX and the societal language was for scolding, English, her HL for affection. She chose which language to use for private interactions in public depending on where the family was, and with whom:

. . . I do scold or get angry in my L2. Perhaps because I find German a harsher sounding language and reserve my English for affection. Also, I like that I can create a level of “privacy” for my children by switching languages based on context when scolding them so as not to embarrass them. So I will use English to scold or disagree when around their friends who do not understand English. Likewise, I will use German when we are around their English-speaking friends in Canada. (Mother to an 8- and 4-year-old; English HL)

Other participants did not wish to replicate the way they were mothered and felt their connection to a particular language and subsequent use was a way to shift away from their own childhoods, away from an HL towards an LX, or a reconnection with an HL through a different form of mothering:

The way I choose to parent (gentle, authoritative) is very different to how I was parented (authoritarian). Therefore while I previously had some negative emotional connections to my L1, I have now developed positive associations with it. I have also studied this language more so I can better speak it to my child given my lack of fluency. (Mother of a 3-year-old; Hokkien Chinese HL)

The sentiment was echoed by others, except theirs was a shift towards the LX to distance themselves from their childhood experience. The LX offered a clear separation and protective layer between the present and the past:

Because I hear my mother (I feel like repeating what she was saying when I was a child) and I don’t like that connection due to not having great relationship to my mum. (Mother of a 2-year-old, Czech HL

I tend not to use my L1 when I’m angry with my child because it reminds me of my own childhood and my own parents and I grew up in an abusive household. So I change languages because then it’s neutral and I have no point of reference. (Mother of a 4-year-old, Bahasa Malaysian (Malay) HL)