Achieving Success in Family Language Policy: Parents, Children and Educators in Interaction

  • Mila SchwartzEmail author
  • Anna Verschik
Part of the Multilingual Education book series (MULT, volume 7)


A family faces various challenges in its attempt to bring up a bilingual or sometimes multilingual child. For example, there are identity conflicts, time pressure restraints in negotiating conflicting language demands and the negative effects of macro-level social processes such as state language policy. Yet, even in these difficult circumstances, some do succeed in holding on to their language and using it with their children. Understanding how immigrant, intermarried, indigenous bilingual and deaf community families achieve success in their family language policy (hereafter FLP) despite very challenging social conditions can help us understand how we can best support others in a similar situation.


Language Policy Intergenerational Transmission Minority Language Bilingual Education Home Language 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aronin, L., and Singleton, D. 2012. Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, C. 2011. Foundation of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  3. Bekerman, Z., and M. Tatar. 2009. Parental choice of schools and parents’ perceptions of multicultural and co-existence education: The case of the Israeli Palestinian-Jewish bilingual primary schools. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 17(2): 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blommaert, J., and A. Backus. 2011. Repertoires revisited: ‘Knowing language’ in superdiversity. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacy, 67. 27 Dec 2012.
  5. Brannen, J. (ed.). 1992. Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  6. Caldas, S., and S. Caron-Caldas. 2000. The influence of family, school, and community on bilingual preference: Results from a Louisiana/Quebec case study. Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics 21(3): 365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caldas, S., and S. Caron-Caldas. 2002. A sociolinguistic analysis of the language preferences of adolescent bilinguals: Shifting allegiances and developing identities. Applied Linguistics 23(4): 490–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chao, R. 1996. Chinese and European-American mothers’ beliefs about the role of parenting in children’s school success. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 27: 403–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creese, A., and P. Martin (eds.). 2003. Multilingual classroom ecologies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  10. De Houwer, A. 2009. Bilingual first language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  11. Döpke, S. 1988. The role of parental teaching techniques in bilingual German–English families. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 72: 101–112.Google Scholar
  12. Döpke, S. 1992. One parent one language: An interactional approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Fishman, J.A. 1991. Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  14. Fishman, J.A. 2001. From theory to practice (and vice versa): Review, reconsideration and reiteration. In Can threatened languages be saved? ed. J.A. Fishman, 451–483. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Harris, J.R. 1995. Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review 103(3): 458–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haugen, E. 1972. The ecology of language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hogan-Brun, G., and M. Ramonienė. 2005. The language situation in Lithuania. Journal of Baltic Studies 36(3): 345–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holland, D., and J. Lave (eds.). 2001. History in person: Enduring struggles, contentious practice, intimate identities. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hua, Z. 2008. Duelling languages, duelling values: Codeswitching in bilingual intergenerational conflict talk in diasporic families. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1799–1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, R.C. 1992. In Offspring of cross-race and cross-ethnic marriages in Hawaii, ed. M.P.P. Root, 239–249. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Johnstone, B. 2010. Language and place. Cambridge handbook of sociolinguistics, ed. Rajend Mesthrie. 31 Jan 2013.
  22. King, K.A., L. Fogle, and A. Logan-Terry. 2008. Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5): 907–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lanza, E. 1997. Language contact in bilingual two-year-olds and code-switching: Language encounters of a different kind? The International Journal of Bilingualism 1(2): 135–162.Google Scholar
  24. Lanza, E. 2004. Language mixing in infant bilingualism: A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lanza, E. 2007. Multilingualism in the family. In Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication, ed. A. Peter and W. Li, 45–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Luykx, A. 2005. Children as socializing agents: Family language policy in situations of language shift. In ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on bilingualism, ed. J. Cohen, K.T. McAlister, J. MacSwan, and K. Rolstad, 1407–1414. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mackey, A., and S.M. Gass. 2005. Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Matras, Y. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matras, Y. 2012. An activity-oriented approach to contact-induced language change. In Dynamics of contact-induced language change, ed. C. Chamoreau and I. Léglise, 17–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  30. Metuzāle-Kangere, B., and U. Ozolins. 2005. The language situation in Latvia 1850–2004. Journal of Baltic Studies 36(3): 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moll, L., C. Amanti, D. Neff, and N. González. 1992. Funds of knowledge for teaching: A qualitative approach to developing strategic connections between homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice 31: 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mühlhäusler, P. 2000. Language planning and language ecology. Language Planning 1(3): 306–367.Google Scholar
  33. Okita, T. 2002. Invisible work: Bilingualism, language choice and childrearing in intermarried families. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Ozolins, U. 2002. Post-imperialist language situations: The Baltic States. World congress on language policies, Barcelona, 16–20 April 2002 13 Feb 2013.
  35. Pavlenko, A. 2008a. Multilingualism in post-soviet countries: Language revival, language removal, and sociolinguistic theory. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 11(3–4): 275–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pavlenko, A. 2008b. Russian in post-Soviet countries. Russian Linguistics 32(1): 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rannut, M. 2008. Estonization efforts post-independence. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 11(3–4): 423–439.Google Scholar
  38. Ronjat, J. 1913. Le développement du Langage Observé Chez un Enfant Bilingue. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
  39. Schwartz, M. 2010. Family language policy: Core issues of an emerging field. Applied Linguistics Review 1(1): 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 1992. Linguistic human rights in education. Language policy in the Baltic States. Conference papers, Riga, December 17–19, 1992, 173–191. Riga: Garā pupa.Google Scholar
  41. Spolsky, B. 2004. Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Spolsky, B. 2007. Family language management: Some preliminaries. In Studies in language and language education: Essays in honor of Elite Olshtain, ed. A. Stavans and I. Kupferberg, 429–449. Jerusalem: The Magnes press, Hebrew University.Google Scholar
  43. Spolsky, B. 2008. Prospects for the survival of the Navajo language: A reconsideration. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 33(2): 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spolsky, B. 2012. Family language policy–the critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33(1): 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tannenbaum, M. 2005. Viewing family relations through a linguistic lens: Symbolic aspects of language maintenance in immigrant families. The Journal of Family Communication 5(3): 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tannenbaum, M. 2012. Family language policy as a form of coping or defence mechanism. Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33(1): 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tannenbaum, M., and P. Howie. 2002. The association between language maintenance and family relations: Chinese immigrant children in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 23(5): 408–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Verschik, A. 2005. The language situation in Estonia. Journal of Baltic Studies 36(3): 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wong Fillmore, L. 2000. Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory into Practice 39(4): 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xu, S.H. 1999. Young Chinese ESL Children’s home literacy experiences. Reading Horizons 40(1): 47–64.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Research and Evaluation AuthorityOranim Academic College of EducationKiryat TivonIsrael
  2. 2.Institute of Estonian Language and CultureTallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations