Family - Language - Policy King 2008

Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (2008): 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00076.
Family Language Policy

Kendall A. King*
Georgetown University and University of Minnesota
Lyn Fogle and Aubrey Logan-Terry

Georgetown University
Abstract
This article describes the newly emerging field of family language policy, defined
as explicit and overt planning in relation to language use within the home among
family members, and provides an integrated overview of research on how languages
are managed, learned, and negotiated within families. A comprehensive framework
for understanding family language policy is sketched by bringing together two
independent and currently disconnected fields of study: language policy and child
language acquisition. Within such a framework, this article reviews research on the
role of language ideologies in shaping family language practices, and on the connection
between different family language policies, such as the one person–one language
approach, and child language outcomes. We argue that family language policies are
important as they shape children’s developmental trajectories, connect in significant
ways with children’s formal school success, and collectively determine the maintenance
and future status of minority languages.
Introduction
Family language policy can be defined as explicit (Shohamy 2006) and overt
(Schiffman 1996) planning in relation to language use within the home among
family members. Family language policy is an important area of investigation
as it sets the frame for child–caretaker interactions, and, ultimately, child
language development (De Houwer 1999), while also providing a window
into parental language ideologies, thus reflecting broader societal attitudes
and ideologies about both language(s) and parenting. Family language policy
draws from – and contributes to – two distinct fields of study: language policy
and child language acquisition.
The study of language policy includes analysis of language beliefs or
ideologies (what people think about language); of language practices (what
people do with language); and of efforts to modify or influence those practices
through any kind of language intervention, planning, or management (what
people try to do to language) (Spolsky 2004). From its inception, language
policy (in the early years known as language planning) was concerned
© 2008 The Authors
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
2 Kendall A. King et al.
primarily with solving ‘language problems’ in newly independent, former

colonial nations (Berry 1968; Fishman 1968; Fishman et al. 1968; Ray 1968).
The field’s working assumptions and paradigmatic orientation have shifted
dramatically over the last decade, with much less focus on solving language
‘problems’ and greater emphasis on understanding shifting language policies
as part of dynamic social, cultural, and ideological systems (Ricento 2000,
2006; King 2003). However, much of this research continues to focus on
language policy and related language use in public space. Indeed, with
relatively few exceptions (e.g., Piller 2001, 2002; Okita 2001), nearly all work
on language policy, both theoretical and empirical, has examined language
policy in institutional contexts, such as the state, the school, or the work
place (e.g., Wiley and Wright 2004; Ricento 2006; Robinson et al. 2006),
with very little attention to the intimate context of the home.
Child language acquisition, in turn, is the study of through what mech-
anisms and under what conditions children learn one or more languages in
the early years of life (Berko-Gleason 2005). While child language acquisition
encompasses a very large domain of study and includes researchers working
within distinct theoretical paradigms (e.g., nativism, connectionism, and social
interactionism) and diverse research approaches (e.g., experimental and quasi-
experimental designs, longitudinal case studies, and naturalistic observation),
most child language researchers share the goal of illuminating the mechanisms
by which children acquire language at a similar pace and following similar
trajectories under diverse learning circumstances (King 2006). Child language
acquisition researchers often have focused on detailed analysis of caretaker–
child interactions in the context of the home or laboratory settings, with
much less attention to parental language learning goals, attitudes, or intentions
(cf. Owens 2001; Guasti 2004). Furthermore, the bulk of child language
research has focused on first language acquisition, with monolingual develop-
ment treated as the norm, and, concomitantly, with much less attention to
second and bilingual language acquisition (Romaine 1999).
While the fields of language policy and child language acquisition are
both broadly concerned with the conditions of language learning and use,
their foci are shaped by distinct disciplinary perspectives: language policy is
rooted in the sociology of education (Fishman 1968), sociolinguistics (Fasold
1990), and applied linguistics (Spolsky 2004); child language acquisition, in
contrast, is a subfield of psychology (Berko-Gleason 2005). As a result, both
language policy and child language acquisition have significant ‘blind spots’
in their approaches and spheres of attention. For instance, a significant area
of language policy research in recent years concerns what types of policies
best enable the maintenance of endangered languages, such as Navajo in
the USA (McCarty 2002; McCarty et al. 2008) or Quechua in Andean
nations (Hornberger 1988; King 2001). Yet, important questions, such as
whether (and how) school language policies can effectively support minority
language acquisition and use in the home, remain unresolved (e.g., Fishman
2001; Hornberger and King 2001; King 2006; Romaine 2006; Hornberger
© 2008 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (2008): 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00076.x
Family Language Policy 3
2008). This is in large part because language policy scholars have tended
to focus on ‘macro’ issues, such as language ideology and language attitudes,
and less on ‘micro’ issues, such as interactional patterns. It is also due to the
fact, as mentioned above, that language policy has traditionally focused on
public and institutional contexts such as the school or the workplace,
with less attention to the intimate sphere of the home and family.
Significant gaps likewise exist within the field of child language acquisition.
As an example, basic issues concerning bilingual development – including
how much and what types of exposure to the two languages are needed to
ensure balanced bilingualism – remain unclear. Furthermore, child language
acquisition scholars have yet to advance a satisfactory explanatory model for
why children raised under similar conditions (e.g. with English-speaking fathers
and Spanish-speaking mothers, each of whom speaks their first language
with the child) often experience such different outcomes in terms of language
proficiency and preference (Ronjat 1913; Leopold 1939–1949; Sondergaard
1981; Saunders 1982, 1988; Taeschner 1983; Harding and Riley 1986;
Arnberg 1987; De Houwer 1990; Döpke 1992; Yamamoto 1995; Lanza
1997). In order to fully address these important questions, the field of child
language acquisition must include within the scope of its investigations not
just micro-analyses of caretaker–child interactions, but also broader issues,
such as parental language ideologies and child-rearing goals, as well as the
support and constraints of the wider family and community context.
Family language policy has the potential to bridge exactly this gap by
drawing from the substantial body of work in each of these two areas. Such
an approach takes into account what families actually do with language in
day-to-day interactions; their beliefs and ideologies about language and
language use; and their goals and efforts to shape language use and learning
outcomes. Only by taking such a comprehensive approach will we come to
a fuller understanding of the important, cross-disciplinary problem of how
parental language ideologies inform the application, realization, and nego-
tiation of family language policies over time as well the short- and long-term
impact of such policies on child language outcomes. Such an approach is
particularly relevant for researchers of heritage languages and practitioners
working with heritage language learners (e.g., Peyton et al. 2001; Polinsky
and Kagan 2007), as family language policy approaches deepen our under-
standing of home language maintenance processes as well as how heritage
language learners are best supported.
The field of language policy has traditionally been divided into three
subareas: status planning (which concerns the functions of language), corpus
planning (on the forms of language), and acquisition planning (on the teaching
and learning of language) (Kloss 1969; Cooper 1989). Language policy
is often most effective when planning and implementation occurs on
multiples levels simultaneously (Fishman 1979). For instance, in the 1980s
and 1990s, in the Andean nation of Ecuador, the Indigenous language of
Quechua was made an official language of the country (an example of status
planning), a dictionary and grammar for the language was developed (corpus
planning), and new, intercultural bilingual education programs were developed
to teach and use the language in primary schools (acquisition planning)
(King 2001).
Likewise, family language policy consists of decisions and actions in three
areas, often undertaken simultaneously. For instance, parents or other care-
takers might make decisions concerning whether and when to use Spanish
or English with their children (status planning), which variety of Spanish to
use for what types of literacy activities (corpus planning), and how and when
to formally or informally instruct the language (acquisition planning)
(Zentella 1997; King and Fogle 2006; also see Caldas 2006).
Cooper outlined the concerns of language policy in terms of the following
question: ‘What actors attempt to influence what behaviors of which people
for what ends under what conditions by what means through what decision-making
process with what effect?’ (1989: 98). Applied to the family context, this same
question can be narrowed to ‘Which caretakers attempt to influence what
behaviors of which family members for what ends under what conditions by what
means through what decision-making process with what effect?’
Much research on language policy has focused on multilingual or multi-
dialectal contexts, as it is precisely here where attention and resources are
allocated to planning language form, language function, and language
instruction. Similarly, most investigations of family language policy have
likewise targeted multilingual homes and communities, in which, for instance,
parents have different native languages (Okita 2001; Piller 2002), the family’s
primary language differs from that of the wider community (Wong Fillmore
1991), parents and children have different language preferences or com-
petencies (Fogle 2008), or parents aim to promote a second, foreign, or
heritage language in the home (Kouritzin 2000; Caldas 2006).
In the following sections, we review the relationships between family
language policy and ideology, and in particular, how language ideologies
become enacted in specific language practices and how language ideologies
are formed in the first place. Next, we review what research suggests concerning
the relationships between family language policies and language learning
outcomes for children. Our conclusion argues that family language policy
merits our serious attention as these policies and their implementation shape
children’s cognitive development; connect in significant ways with children’s
formal school success; and collectively determine the maintenance of that
particular language.
Family Language Policy and Ideology

Across many areas, parental ideologies have been theorized to play a role
in parenting practices and developmental outcomes for children. Different
ideas about the nature of the child, parenting, and the family can be seen
to shape cross-cultural differences in practices, behaviors, and outcomes
(Harkness and Super 2006). Language ideologies in particular, or ‘repre-

sentations, either explicit or implicit, that construe the intersection of language
and human beings in a social world’ (Woolard 1998: 3), have been seen to
play a role in both language policy and language acquisition processes
(Kulick 1993; Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1998; De Houwer 1999; King
2000). For this reason, understanding what language ideologies underlie
parenting practices and how these ideologies are formed is of primary
concern to family language policy research.
Ideology is often seen to be the underlying force in language practices
and planning and therefore has been suggested to be ‘the mediating link
between language use and social organization’ (King 2000: 169). More than
one language ideology, however, is often at work in a given community
(Spolsky 2004; Shohamy 2006), and the conflict between competing
ideologies can be seen as the genesis of language policies. Shohamy, for
example, views language policy as a, ‘manipulative tool in the continuous
battle between ideologies’ (450).
The family sphere can become a crucible for such ideological conflicts,
as has been seen in work on language shift and revitalization. Studies of
Indigenous communities’ efforts to revitalize or maintain a native language
point to tensions that can arise between conflicting explicit and implicit
ideologies (Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1998; King 2000). King (2000), for
example, points to how conflict between community members’ stated, explicit
‘pro-Indigenous’ and privately held, implicit ‘anti-Indigenous’ language
ideologies together shaped home language practices toward community
language shift. These cases have emphasized both the importance of language
ideology in language revitalization efforts and the complex nature of language
ideologies themselves. Yet such findings leave open two main questions:
how do language ideologies become enacted in specific language practices
(or what language practices exemplify ideological stances), and how are
language ideologies formed in the first place (i.e., what input do individuals
respond to in forming belief systems)?
Parent Language Ideologies and Family Language Practices

To address the first question, that is, how language ideologies become enacted
in language practices, we turn to studies of first language socialization that
have illuminated the links between cultural beliefs and communicative
strategies used by caregivers. Ochs and Schieffelin (1984), for example,
showed that the linguistic characteristics of caregivers’ child-directed speech
were culturally varied and linked to beliefs about the child as a competent
interlocutor. For bilingual children, parental ideologies are also theorized
to play a crucial role in determining language outcomes. De Houwer
(1999) draws on a model from developmental psychology to illustrate the
relationship between beliefs, practices, and outcomes (see Figure 1) in child-
hood bilingualism.
Fig. 1. Relationship between parental beliefs/attitudes and children’s language development.
As De Houwer notes, the representation in Figure 1 is overly simplistic as

these processes are interactive and not unidirectional; for instance, children’s
own language behavior is shaped by parental language but also in turn impacts
parents’ beliefs and strategies.
Taking this basic model as a starting point, at least three types of parental
ideologies or attitudes impact linguistic practices in bilingual families (De
Houwer 1999). First, parents often have clear ideas about which languages
should be used for what purposes with their children. Hornberger (1988),
for instance, showed how Quechua parents in the Peruvian Andes shared
beliefs about in which domains Spanish or Quechua should be used with
children. In this case, despite governmental efforts to provide Quechua-
Spanish bilingual education in public schools, parents conceived of the school
as a Spanish-only domain for formal learning and thus resisted Quechua-
medium schooling. Second, parents’ attitudes concerning particular types of
interactions, such as mixing or use of slang, impact their own child-directed
speech. Zentella (1997), as an example, documented how code-switching
among multiple generations of Puerto Ricans in New York provides a means
for establishing an authentic Nuyorican identity. Third, parents’ attitudes
towards language learning and bilingualism also come into play in influencing
their interactional strategies. King (2001) described how Indigenous Ecua-
dorian parents’ belief that early second language exposure confuses children
leads them to promote Spanish only in the home (and concomitantly, to shift
away from their Indigenous language).
In addition, parents may vary in what De Houwer calls their ‘impact
beliefs’; that is, the degree to which parents see themselves as capable of
and responsible for shaping their children’s language. Kulick (1993), for
instance, describes how parents in Papua New Guinea explain their children’s
monolingualism as the result not of family and community interactional
patterns, but as an expression of children’s own will and innate personality,
allocating ‘blame’ for language shift to the children themselves. Other
researchers have suggested a less direct link between parental ideologies
and bilingual child language outcomes, noting the influence of more general
cultural attitudes, including, for instance, public controversies surrounding
immigration and bilingual education on children’s language behavior
(Martínez-Roldán and Malavé 2004).
Little work, however, addresses the second question above, that is, how
parents form language ideologies and what sources of input influence parental
attitudes and beliefs. In Western, information-driven societies, for example,
a possible source of input seems to be the professional parenting advice
industry that offers books, websites, and training. From the perspective of
parents attempting to raise their children bilingually, however, parenting
literature or public discourses on bilingualism have been found to play
only a limited role. Piller (2001) concluded that very little of the research
literature on bilingualism filtered into the family discourse on bilingual
childrearing. Furthermore, King and Fogle (2006) found that parents drew on
different sources for explaining their bilingual parenting decisions, with expert
literature playing a minor role in comparison to other sources, such as examples
from family members and their own past language learning experiences.
Parents’ language ideologies are also inextricably connected with other
aspects of parenthood, including culture-specific notions of what makes a
‘good’ or ‘bad’ parent, mother, or father. In this way, public discourse regarding
(‘good’ or ‘bad’) parenting thus also potentially influences parental beliefs
and practices. Okita (2001), for example, described how the ‘good mother’
identities of Japanese mothers (living in England with English spouses) were
vulnerable to unrelenting public advice and recommendations, and con-
comitant little recognition of the (invisible) work that bilingual parenting
entailed, often resulting in maternal guilt, stress, and personal trauma.
LINKS BETWEEN HOME AND SOCIETY LANGUAGE USE PATTERNS
Family patterns of language use and acquisition are both reflected in and
reflective of societal patterns. This cyclical or bidirectional relationship between
society and family ideologies can be seen in processes that occur across
generations. In a study of bilingual child-rearing in the USA, Tuominen
(1999: 73) found that parents’ policies were often affected by school-age
children’s attitudes and practices: ‘Children in multilingual families are
socializing their parents instead of being socialized by them. They are
teaching their parents to “speak the same language” as the rest of America.’
In this way, American cultural values of assimilation and one nation–one
language are replicated in bilingual families despite parents’ explicit efforts
to maintain the minority language.
Studies focusing on the acquisition of dialectal variation patterns by children
also point to the ways in which language use in the family intersects with
that of the larger speech community. As children begin to identify with
peer groups outside of the home, those groups that reinforce home dialects
have been found to promote their maintenance (Hazen 2002). And further-
more, perceptions about standard vs. local varieties of a language can shape
the type of language used by parents and even older siblings with younger
children. De Houwer (2003), for example, found that families who were
users of a local Antwerpian dialect in Belgium tended to use more standard
forms with younger children, which, De Houwer concludes, suggests an

environment for language change.
The family unit, therefore, can be seen as a site in which language ideologies
are both formed and enacted through caregiver–child interactions. It is within
the family unit, and particularly bi- or multilingual families, that macro- and
micro-processes can be examined as dominant ideologies intersect and com-
pete with local or individual views on language and parenting. These relation-
ships warrant the examination of the role of family language ideologies in
language practices and outcomes of child language acquisition in more detail.
In the following section, we will review research examining how family
language policies indeed affect language learning outcomes for children.
Family Language Policy and Child Language Outcomes

Studies of family language policy can be categorized according to the parental
strategies employed in the promotion of bilingualism, as well as by the
type, situation, and context of the families studied (Lanza 1992; Romaine
1995). Much of the research on bilingual acquisition in childhood has focused
on families enacting the one person–one language (OPOL) approach, in which
parents have different native languages, the language of one of the parents
is spoken in the wider community (considered the majority language), and
each parent speaks their native language to their children (Ronjat 1913;
Leopold 1939–1949; Sondergaard 1981; Harding and Riley 1986; Arnberg
1987; De Houwer 1990; Döpke 1992; Kasuya 1998; Juan-Garau and Perez-
Vidal 2001; Takeuchi 2006). Other researchers have studied OPOL families
in which the parents each speak a different minority language in the home
(Hoffman 1985), creating a trilingual environment with the third language
being the majority language used outside the home, what Romaine (1989)
terms ‘double non-dominant home language without community support’.
Still other OPOL studies have looked at families in which one parent uses
a minority language that is not their native language in the home (Saunders
1982, 1988; Fantini 1985; Döpke 1992).
Non-OPOL types of language use in the home have also been an area
of active research, including both parents using a minority language (Fantini
1985; Pan 1995; Kouritzin 2000), also referred to as the ‘hot-house’ approach.
Additional non-OPOL family types that have been studied include those
that employ a mixed use of languages, where caretakers engage in code-
switching (Lyon 1996). Furthermore, some studies have considered the ways
in which families can supplement either OPOL or non-OPOL strategies by
employing a paid caretaker who can speak the minority language (Taeschner
1983; King and Logan-Terry 2008) or by sending children to international
schools (Swain and Lapkin 1982). These supplemental strategies represent
increasingly popular ‘additive’ approaches to the promotion of bilingualism.
The findings concerning the child outcomes of such different family
language policies vary widely, illustrating both relatively successful (Ronjat
1913; Leopold 1939–1949; Saunders 1982, 1988; Taeschner 1983; Harding

and Riley 1986; De Houwer 1990) and less successful (Sondergaard 1981;
Arnberg 1987; Döpke 1992; Yamamoto 1995; Lanza 1997) bilingual develop-
ment of the children studied. These varied outcomes in bilingual language
proficiency often have been explained by researchers as the result of family-
specific implementational factors, and in particular, the consistency in which
the stated policy was adhered to.
Lack of consistency to stated language policy is widely cited by researchers
as major reason for less than optimal outcomes. For example, Pan’s (1995)
study of Chinese families living in the USA found that parents tended to
switch into English when the children used English, leading the researcher
to predict family language shift towards English. Along similar lines, Lanza’s
(1997) work with Norwegian-English bilingual families suggests that parental
discourse strategies in response to children’s majority language use account
for the relative success of promoting the minority language among some
OPOL families. In Lanza’s study of bilingual families in Norway, for example,
parents who used a ‘minimal grasp’ strategy by pretending not to understand
when the child chose to speak in Norwegian (the majority language) instead
of English (the minority language) were able to promote greater use of English
by the child.
According to Lanza’s (1997) parental discourse hypothesis (PDH), parents’
use of these sorts of discursive strategies is important in determining success
of children’s minority language maintenance. Correspondingly, Takeuchi
(2006), in a study of Japanese families living in Australia, also found that
success of children’s bilingual language development is related to mothers’
consistent use of Japanese, more so than travel to Japan or contact with other
Japanese speakers. Similarly, the quality of language interaction (i.e., the child-
centeredness of the interaction) has been found to be more important than
the mere quantity of time spent with the child (Döpke 1992). Overall, these
and other studies (Taeschner 1983; Arnberg 1987; Juan-Garau and Perez-
Vidal 2001) stress the importance of consistency of parents’ language choice
in children’s successful bilingual development.
Other researchers have noted the importance of making family language
policy explicit. For instance, Kasuya (1998) investigated children who were
learning Japanese and English through the OPOL strategy while living in
the USA. Like Lanza (1997), Kasuya attempted to explore the effectiveness
of parental discourse strategies in response to children’s use of non-target
language by looking at children’s subsequent turns. Kasuya’s study found
that parents used implicit strategies, such as the use of repetition or moving
on, more often than explicit strategies, such as the use of instruction or
correction; however, Kasuya also reported that parents who made their
preference for the use of Japanese quite explicit had the highest success
rate in relation to the children’s subsequent choice of Japanese.
In turn, other researchers have stressed the importance of age and context
in determining success of family language policy. For example, Döpke
(1992) suggests that it may be complicated for children to continue to

develop in the minority language after they begin to attend school in the
majority language. In this way, it seems that the community context plays
a crucial role in determining the success of bilingual family language
policies. This is also evidenced by Hoffman’s (1985) study of a family in
the situation of double non-dominant home languages without community
support (learning Spanish, German, and English while living in England),
which found that children could actively use all three languages, but were
English-dominant.
Research has thus addressed a diverse set of family language policies, each
of which has been implemented differentially and associated with varied
child outcomes. Researchers have pointed to factors such as parents’ con-
sistency of language choice, age, and context as important in determining
the degree to which these different family language policies are successful
in promoting bilingual child language development. While none of these
policies has been demonstrated to always result in active knowledge of two
languages on the part of the child, research does indicate that lack of attention
to language planning in the home may lead to language shift. In other words,
at least in some societal contexts, family language policy seems to be necessary
but not sufficient for children’s bilingual development.
Conclusion: Family Language Policy, Language Maintenance, and Future Research

Family language policy merits our serious attention as these policies and their
implementation shape children’s development; connect in significant ways
with children’s formal school success; and taken together, determine
whether a particular language will be maintained. Each of these points is
discussed briefly below.
How families use and allocate language in the home has implications for
cognitive development and educational achievement. In terms of mono-
lingual first language development, there is solid empirical evidence demon-
strating that parental language use impacts child language development
(Hoff-Ginsberg 1998; Hoff and Naigles 2002; Hoff 2003) and positively
correlates with later measurements of IQ (Hart and Risley 1995). There is
some evidence that parental language choice mediates this relationship
in bi- and multilingual families. Dolson (1985), for instance, studied two
groups of Latino children, about half of them came from Spanish-dominant
families that had switched to English, the other half continued to speak
Spanish. Although the children were similar in terms of family economic
status and length of time they had been in US schools, those from Spanish-
speaking homes outperformed those from homes that had switched to English
on multiple measures, including mathematics skills, Spanish reading vocabulary,
academic grade point average, and retention.
One possible interpretation of this significant relationship between academic
performance and Spanish-language use in the home is that when parents
insist on using their weaker language for communication at home (in this
case, English), children are exposed to less language as well as less complex
language, which in turn negatively impacts their linguistic and cognitive
development. This interpretation is supported by Snow’s work (1990) at the
United Nations International School in New York City. She found that chil-
dren whose parents spoke their native language (be it English or a non-English
language) outperformed students whose parents spoke to them in English
as their second language on measures of linguistic and academic achievement
(a formal definitions task and the California Achievement Test).
In additional to being important for the individual child’s development,
family language policy lays the foundation for language maintenance. As
Joshua Fishman (1991, 2001) has argued persuasively for more than a decade,
the bedrock of language maintenance is intergenerational transmission of
the language. At the heart of Fishman’s work on language maintenance and
revitalization is his Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale, which both
characterizes the extent to which a particular language is endangered and
serves as a heuristic device to assist communities in targeting their efforts.
A crucial point of the scale is Stage 6, intergenerational transmission, in
which the threatened language becomes the everyday language of informal,
spoken interaction between and within all three generations within the
family. This stage, according to Fishman (1991), is both the most difficult and
the most critical for language revitalization efforts; it cannot be skipped,
substituted, or jumped across. The centrality of Stage 6 is partly based on
the premise that functional differentiation is necessary. This is because, as
Fishman has argued, language maintenance is not ‘a global “total language”
task’, but rather a ‘functionally specific process that must be tackled on well-
chosen, functionally specific grounds’ (1991: 65).
This functional differentiation and centrality of home and intergenerational
transmission have been the most critiqued and considered aspects of Fishman’s
work, and remain a substantial area of debate and research (e.g., Martin-
Jones 1989; Romaine 2006). This debate around intergenerational transmission
has evolved as such – at least in part – because we know relatively little about
intergenerational transmission as a process, as well as what is needed to
adequately support that process. Further as a concept intergenerational trans-
mission remains somewhat ill-defined. This is partially due to the gap between
child language acquisition scholars on the one hand, and sociolinguists on
the other hand, who tend to ask different questions and to answer them
using different methodologies. It is also due to the lack of focus on family
language policy discussed above. In contrast to how it is often conceptualized
in sociolinguistic and language policy literature, intergenerational transmission
is not binary, but a much more dynamic, muddled, and nuanced process,
and one in need of further investigation. Indeed, ‘the dynamics of inter-
generational transmission are perhaps more important to understand than
any other relevant factor in assessing the need for language revitalization’
(Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 6).
Other important directions for future research include greater focus on

how such processes are impacted by forces of globalization including the
transnational flows of discourses, ideologies, and people as an increasing
number of families are separated for long periods of time, and the languages
in need (or perceived need) change quickly. Future work should also put
greater focus on policies other than OPOL, including those chosen by
immigrant families speaking a minority language not supported by the
majority language-speaking community as well as the increasingly popular
additive approaches of majority-language parents who are not native
speakers of a minority language. Lastly, future work might also examine
critically how parents and other caretakers define ‘success’ in family language
policy implementation, how this definition changes over time, and what
is at stake for children, parents, and communities in working towards
this goal.
Short Biography
Kendall A. King is an Associate Professor in the Second Languages and
Cultures program at the University of Minnesota. She was previously a
professor at Georgetown University, Stockholm University and New York
University. Her work addresses social, cultural, and policy perspective on
second language learning and bilingualism, with particular attention to
Spanish speakers in the USA and in Latin America. Her work has
appeared in the International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
Journal of Child Language, First Language, and Journal of Sociolinguistics and in
numerous edited collections. She is an editor of the journal Language Policy
and of the book, Sustaining Linguistic Diversity (April, 2008, Georgetown
University Press).
Lyn Fogle is a Doctoral Candidate in Linguistics at Georgetown University.
Her interests include language socialization and language policy perspectives
on second language learning and bilingualism. Her co-authored work has
appeared in the International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
and she is the author of a chapter in the forthcoming edited volume Child’s
Play: Second Language Acquisition and the Younger Learner ( John Benjamins
Publishing Company). She is currently investigating language use and language
learning in American families with international adoptees.
Aubrey Logan-Terry is a PhD student at Georgetown University, with
research interests that include sociolinguistic approaches to second language
acquisition and family discourse, especially in Spanish/English bilingual homes.
She has published work related to these areas in Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, Innovations in Language Learning and Teaching, and Calidoscópio. Her
current work involves a longitudinal case study of interactions between
twin girls (from age 2 to 7), examining their language acquisition as well
as their gendered use of interactional resources, such as verbal and physical
repetition.
Note
* Correspondence address: Kendall A. King, University of Minnesota, College of Education
and Human Development, 228 Peik Hall, 159 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455–
0208, USA. E-mail: [email protected].
Works Cited
Arnberg, Lenore. 1987. Raising children bilingually: the preschool years. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Berko-Gleason, Jean. 2005. The development of language. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Berry, Jack. 1968. The making of alphabets. Readings in the sociology of language, ed. by
Joshua Fishman, 737–53. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
Caldas, Stephen J. 2006. Raising bilingual-biliterate children in monolingual cultures. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters Press.
Cooper, Ralph L. 1989. Language planning and social change. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Dauenhauer, Nora M., and Richard Dauenhauer. 1998. Technical, emotional, and ideological
issues in reversing language shift: examples from Southeast Alaska. Endangered languages: current
issues and future prospects, ed. by Lenore A. Grenoble and Lindsay J. Whaley, 57–116.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
De Houwer, Annick. 1990. The acquisition of two languages: a case study. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
——. 1999. Environmental factors in early bilingual development: the role of parental beliefs
and attitudes. Bilingualism and Migration, ed. by Guus Extra and Ludo Verhoeven, 75–96.
New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
——. 2003. Language variation and local elements in family discourse. Language Variation and
Change 15.329– 49.
Dolson, David P. 1985. The effects of Spanish home language use on the scholastic performance
of Hispanic pupils. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6.135–56.
Döpke, Susanne. 1992. One parent one language: an interactional approach. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Fantini, Alvino E. 1985. Language acquisition of a bilingual child: a sociolinguistic perspective.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Fasold, Ralph. 1990. The sociolinguistics of society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1968. Sociolinguistics and the language problems of the developing countries.
Language problems of developing nations, ed. by Joshua A. Fishman, Charles A. Ferguson
and Jyotirindra Das Gupta, 491–8. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
——. 1979. Bilingual education, language planning, and English. English World-Wide
1.11–24.
——. 1991. Reversing language shift. Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to
threatened languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
——. 2001. Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language shift revisited: A 21st
century perspective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, Joshua A., Charles A. Ferguson, and Jyotirindra Das Gupta (eds.). 1968. Language
problems of developing nations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Fogle, Lyn Wright. 2008. Home-school connections for international adoptees: producing
academic language in parent-child interactions. Child’s play? Second language acquisition and
the younger learner, ed. by Jenefer Philp, Rhonda Oliver and Alison Mackey. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Grenoble, Lenore A., and Lindsay J. Whaley. 2006. Saving languages: an introduction to
language revitalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Guasti, Maria Teresa. 2004. Language acquisition: the growth of grammar. Boston, MA: MIT
Press.
Harding, Edith, and Philip Riley. 1986. The bilingual family: a handbook for parents. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.

Harkness, Sara and Charles Super. 2006. Themes and variations: parental ethnotheories in Western
cultures. Parenting beliefs, behaviors, and parent-child relations: a cross-cultural perspective,
ed. by Kenneth H. Rubin and Ock B. Chung, 61–79. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Hart, Betty, and Todd Risley. 1995. Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of
young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Hazen, Kirk. 2002. The family. A chapter for the handbook of language variation and change,
ed. by Jack Chambers, Peter Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes, 500 –25. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Hoff, Erika. 2003. The specificity of environmental influence: socioeconomic status affects early
vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development 74.1368 –78.
Hoff, Erika, and Letitia Naigles. 2002. How children use input in acquiring a lexicon. Child
Development 73.418–33.
Hoff-Ginsberg, Erika. 1998. The relation of birth order and socioeconomic status to children’s
language experience and language development. Applied Psycholinguistics 19.603 –29.
Hoffman, Charlotte. 1985. Language acquisition in two trilingual children. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development 6.479 –95.
Hornberger, Nancy H. 1988. Bilingual education and language maintenance: a southern
Peruvian Quechua case. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
—— (ed.). 2008. Can schools save Indigenous languages? Policy and practice on four conti-
nents. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hornberger, Nancy H., and Kendall A. King. 2001. Reversing Quechua language shift in
South America. Can threatened languages be saved? ed. by Joshua A. Fishman, 166 –94.
Juan-Garau, Maria, and Carmen Perez-Vidal. 2001. Mixing and pragmatic parental strategies
in early bilingual acquisition. Journal of Child Language 28.59–86.
Kasuya, Hiroko. 1998. Determinants of language choice in bilingual children: the role of input.
International Journal of Bilingualism 2.327– 46.
King, Kendall A. 2000. Language ideologies and heritage language education. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 33.167–84.
——. 2001. Language revitalization processes and prospects: Quichua in the Ecuadorian Andes.
——. 2003. Review of language ideologies: critical perspectives on the official English move-
ment and sociopolitical perspectives on language policy and planning in the USA. Language
Policy 21.75 –9.
——. 2006. Child language acquisition. An introduction to language and linguistics, ed. by
Ralph Fasold and Jeff Connor-Linton, 205–34. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
King, Kendall A., and Aubrey Logan-Terry. 2008. Additive bilingualism through family language
policy: ideologies, strategies and interactional outcomes. Calidoscópio 6.5–19.
King, Kendall A., and Lyn Fogle. 2006. Bilingual parenting as good parenting: parents’
perspectives on family language policy for additive bilingualism. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 96.695 –712.
Kloss, Heinz. 1969. Research possibilities on group bilingualism: a report. Quebec, Canada:
International Center for Research on Bilingualism.
Kouritzin, Sandra G. 2000. A mother’s tongue. TESOL Quarterly 34.311–24.
Kulick, Don. 1993. Growing up monolingual in a multilingual community: how language
socialization patterns are leading to language shift in Gapun Papua New Guinea. Progression
and regression in language, ed. by Kenneth Hyltenstam and Ake Viberg, 94–121. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lanza, Elizabeth. 1992. Can bilingual two-year-olds code-switch? Journal of Child Language
19.633 –58.
——. 1997. Language mixing in infant bilingualism. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Leopold, Werner F. 1939–1949. Speech development of a bilingual child, Volume I–IV. Evanston,
IL: Northwestern University Press.
Lyon, Jean. 1996. Patterns of parental language use in Wales. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 12.165–83.
Martínez-Roldán, Carmen M., and Guillermo Malavé. 2004. Language ideologies mediating
literacy and identity in bilingual contexts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 42.155–80.

Martin-Jones, Marilyn. 1989. Language, power and linguistic minorities: the need for an
alternative approach to bilingualism, language maintenance and shift. Social anthropology and
the politics of language, ed. by Ralph Grillo, 106–25. London, UK: Routledge.
McCarty, Teresa L. 2002. A place to be Navajo: rough rock and the struggle for self-determination
in indigenous schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McCarty, Teresa L., Mary Eunice Romero-Little, and Ofelia Zepeda. 2008. Sustaining linguistic
diversity: endangered and minority languages and language varieties, ed. by Kendall A. King,
Natalie Schilling-Estes, Lyn Fogle, Jackie Lou and Barbara Soukup, 159–72. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
Ochs, Elinor, and Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1984. Language acquisition and socialization: three
developmental stories and their implications. Culture theory: essays on mind, self, and emotion,
ed. by Richard A. Shweder and Robert A. LeVine, 276 –320. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Okita, Toshie. 2001. Invisible work: bilingualism, language choice and childrearing in inter-
married families. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Owens, Robert E., Jr. 2001. Language development: an introduction. Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Pan, Barbara A. 1995. Code negotiation in bilingual families: ‘My body starts speaking English’.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 16.315–27.
Peyton, Joy Kreeft, Donald A. Ranard, and Scott McGinnis (eds). 2001. Heritage languages in
America: preserving a national resource. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and
Delta Systems.
Piller, Ingrid. 2001. Private language planning: the best of both worlds? Estudios de Sociolingüistica
2.61–80.
——. 2002. Bilingual couple talk: the discursive construction of hybridity. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Polinsky, Maria, and Olga Kagan. 2007. Heritage languages: in the ‘wild’ and in the classroom.
Language and Linguistics Compass 1/5.368–95.
Ray, Sloka. 1968. Language standardization. Readings in the sociology of language, ed. by
Joshua Fishman, 754 – 65. New York, NY: Mouton Publishers.
Ricento, Thomas. 2000. Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning.
Journal of Sociolinguistics 4.196 –213.
——. 2006. Language policy: Theory and practice: an introduction. An introduction to language
policy: theory and method, ed. by Thomas Ricento, 10–23. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Robinson, John, William Rivers, and Richard Brecht. 2006. Demographic and sociopolitical
predictors of American attitudes towards foreign language policy. Language Policy 5.421– 42.
Romaine, Suzanne. 1995. Bilingualism, 2nd edn. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
——. 1999. Bilingual language development. The development of language, ed. by Martyn
Barrett, 251–75. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
——. 2006. Planning for the survival of linguistic diversity. Language Policy 5.441–73.
Ronjat, Jules. 1913. Le developpement du langage observe chez un enfant bilingue. Paris,
France: Champion.
Saunders, George. 1982. Bilingual children: guidance for the family. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
——. 1988. Bilingual children: from birth to teens. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Schiffman, Harold. 1996. Linguistic culture and language policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shohamy, Elana. 2006. Language policy: hidden agendas and new approaches. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Snow, Catherine E. 1990. Rationales for native language instruction: evidence from research.
Bilingual education issues and strategies, ed. by Amado M. Padilla, Halford H. Fairchild, and
Concepcion M. Valadez, 47–59. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press.
Sondergaard, Bent. 1981. Decline and fall of an individual bilingualism. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development 2.297–302.
Spolsky, Bernard. 2004. Language policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, Merrill, and Sharon Lapkin. 1982. Evaluating bilingual education: a Canadian case
study. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Taeschner, Traute. 1983. The sun is feminine: a study of language acquisition in bilingual
children. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Takeuchi, Masae. 2006. Raising children bilingually through the ‘one parent-one language’
approach: a case study of Japanese mothers in the Australian context. Bern, Switzerland: Peter
Lang.
Tuominen, Anne K. 1999. Who decides the home language? A look at multilingual families.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 140.59–76.
Wiley, Terrence G., and Wayne E. Wright. 2004. Against the undertow: language minority
educational policy and politics in the age of accountability. Educational Policy 18.142– 6 8.
Wong Fillmore, Lily. 1991. When learning a second language means losing the first. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly 6.323– 47.
Woolard, Kathryn A. 1998. Introduction: language ideology as a field of inquiry. Language
ideologies: practice and theory, ed. by Bambi B. Schieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul
V. Kroskrity, 3– 48. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Yamamoto, Masayo. 1995. Bilingualism in international families. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 16.63 – 85.
Zentella, Ana C. 1997. Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publisher.


Family - Language - Policy King 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Family - Language - Policy King 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Family - Language - Policy King 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (2008): 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00076.

Family Language Policy

Lyn Fogle and Aubrey Logan-Terry

primarily with solving ‘language problems’ in newly independent, former

Family Language Policy and Ideology

(Harkness and Super 2006). Language ideologies in particular, or ‘repre-

Parent Language Ideologies and Family Language Practices

Fig. 1. Relationship between parental beliefs/attitudes and children’s language development.

As De Houwer notes, the representation in Figure 1 is overly simplistic as

LINKS BETWEEN HOME AND SOCIETY LANGUAGE USE PATTERNS

forms with younger children, which, De Houwer concludes, suggests an

Family Language Policy and Child Language Outcomes

1913; Leopold 1939–1949; Saunders 1982, 1988; Taeschner 1983; Harding

(1992) suggests that it may be complicated for children to continue to

Conclusion: Family Language Policy, Language Maintenance, and Future Research

Other important directions for future research include greater focus on

© 2008 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (2008): 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00076.x

© 2008 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (2008): 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00076.x

© 2008 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (2008): 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00076.x

© 2008 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (2008): 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00076.x

You might also like