FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY: The key to success in bilingual and multilingual families

INTRODUCTION: Language in the home – how should it be like?

Parents in bilingual or multilingual families often grapple with a range of questions related to language development, identity formation, and cultural transmission. These questions may include:

• How can we ensure our children become proficient in two or more languages?
• What strategies can we use to promote language maintenance and avoid language attrition (or loss)?
• How can we help our children develop a positive sense of identity in the cultures that matter to the family?
• What resources are available to support our approach?

Essentially, these are questions related to the FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY, which usually relates to a combination of language ideologies, practices and management strategies – these are components that we’ve seen in the Spolsky’s framework of language policy in general.

Undoubtedly, educational discourses have consistently emphasised the crucial role of parents in a child’s holistic development, not only during the pre-schooling years but also extending through formal schooling and adolescence years. This is also the case in the area of language education.

As parents, we do exert much influence over the language in our homes. Not to suggest that we’re the only agents in this process, but we have the headstart in deciding language use when our child or children are less able to contest against that. And even as they gain proficiency and maturity, we can still be significant figures in shaping how language is done in the family unit – thus our FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY.

So, this article is part of LEA’s commitment to parents – as mentioned in my May newsletter – that I aim to help parents understand the concept of FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY and why it matters while also showcasing the spectrum of policies families implement, consciously and unconsciously, may inspire us to re-evaluate and potentially refine our own language policy and planning. 

1. What is considered a “Family”? What is a “Family Language Policy”?

1.1 The “FAMILY” in question

In the context of research on FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY, the concept “FAMILY” encompasses a diverse range of family structures, including married couples, groups of people living in the same residence or village, and even couples without children – though the last type is irrelevant to us as LEA parents.

In older articles, the “FAMILY” is usually viewed as a stable entity, and is defined by its constituent members (Palviainen, 2020). As the field develops, it has also evolved to become more dynamic and be seen as system of social networks embedded within and influenced by wider society. It can be temporal in nature (e.g. specific to a particular time frame) and be conceptualised as a unique “space” that exists along the private-public spectrum (Lanza & Lomeu Gomes, 2020).

In particular, one study identified four types of families as part of literature review: nuclear, extended, extended digital and nuclear digital (Bose et al., 2023). Note that the digital families here refer to families that communicate and connect via digital means – they need not be physically close in proximity.

In recent years, the field has also placed more attention on transnational families and bilingual families dealing with minority languages, instead of families with WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) backgrounds that used to permeate research (Curdt-Christiansen & Sun, 2022; Lanza & Lomeu Gomes, 2020).

Fellow parents, regardless of our backgrounds or our family structure in question, we can be rest assured that academic literature on FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY do have something to offer us.

1.2 Defining “FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY”

One of the most frequently cited definition of “FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY” is the one coined by King, Fogle, and Logan-Terry (2008): “explicit and overt planning in relation to language use within the home among family members”.

As the field progresses, researchers have noticed that families often establish policies unknowingly, without being consciously aware of it. As such, recent definitions have expanded the language planning aspect to include “implicit and covert” efforts which also transcend the simple concept of “use” to include “language choice” and “literacy practices” (Curdt-Christiansen, 2018; Curdt-Christiansen & Sun, 2022; Hirsch & Lee, 2018; Lanza & Lomeu Gomes, 2020).

If you’ve been following LEA for a while, you might have also read my article on Spolsky’s framework of Language Policy. Spolsky has been an influential scholar when it comes to language policy at different levels, and “FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY” has been identified by him to be a “critical domain” that is the epicentre of both policy implementation and outcomes (Spolsky, 2012).

Since the emergence of his tripartite framework of policy, which includes 3 components: language ideologies or beliefs, language practices and language management (approach, intervention) (Hirsch & Lee, 2018; Spolsky, 2004, 2017, 2021), research on FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY has also become more holistic in the narratives on the policies. What this simply means is that if we encounter any recent study in this field, we do need to be mindful of the component(s) that is engaged within the study – it may not necessarily just be language management as previously implied.

“Language policy is about choice. It may be the choice of a specific sound, or expression, or of a specific variety of language. It may be the choice regularly made by an individual, or a socially defined group of individuals, or a body with authority over a defined group of individuals.”

Spolsky, 2004: Language Policy

2. Why is a carefully thought out FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY important?

Remember that our definition of policy relates to the set of language ideologies/beliefs, language practices (e.g. choice, patterns of use), and language management – within the context of the family, the combined impact of these components forms the linguistic experiences of our children – and they have profound impact on their language outcomes and overall development. 

“Family language policy provides a frame for examining child-caretaker interactions, parental language ideologies (including broader societal attitudes and ideologies about language(s) and parenting), and ultimately, child language development.”

King & Fogle, 2017: Family Language Policy. In McCarty, T. L., & May, S. (Eds.), Language Policy and Political Issues in Education (Third Edition)

2.1 Predicts language learning outcomes

Numerous studies exploring the effects of FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY have consistently revealed a robust association between such policies and language proficiency across all three components of ideologies/beliefs, practices and management (Hollebeke, Struys & Agirdag, 2020; Curdt-Christiansen & Sun, 2022). This is unsurprising, since the home is usually the first site of language acquisition for any individual.

One key factor that explains this relates to language input – the vital ingredient for any level of language acquisition (Curdt-Christiansen, 2022; Curdt-Christiansen & Sun, 2022; Hollebeke et al., 2022; Schalley & Eisenchlas, 2022). I’ve shared elsewhere in other articles on the various designs of language input and types of language input that a learner needs for effective language learning. Within a home environment, the quantity and quality of language input is very much determined by the FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY.

Let’s put it this way: if a language (whether the standardised form or any of its varieties) has been excluded deliberately at home (and even immediate community), the child in question will unlikely have sufficient exposure to its input for any chance of learning or acquisition. By mere language choice, proficiency in a certain language is already heavily affected.

A FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY also shapes language use patterns within the family, influencing when and how different languages are used in various contexts. Consistent use of selected target languages according to the FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY can reinforce language skills and promote active engagement in specific target language(s) among family members. This, in turn, can lead to different language learning outcomes for the child/children (e.g. domain-specific proficiency and preferences).

2.2 Conditions language use

In relation, I believe we shouldn’t be too surprised by the link between FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY and language use, considering the interconnection between proficiency and use (Hollebeke, Struys & Agirdag, 2020). Simply speaking, a FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY favourable in developing language proficiency can also further strengthen its use by the child/children within the family; frequent use of the language in question then further enhances the child/children’s proficiency (Pearson, 2007).

Let’s not underestimate the importance of frequent (and somewhat consistent pattern of) language use within the family. Firstly, frequency relates to quantity of input – an important characteristic of input that drives acquisition. The more frequent a specific language is used, the more opportunities that a child can have raw linguistic data to process for learning.

Secondly, frequency also provides the space for recurrence of targeted linguistic features – an important design that can enhance the process of “noticing”. By means of reasoning, we can’t expect parents to be professional psycholinguists to tailor input recurrence for optimal acquisition. However, regular exposure to some common familial communicative contexts (e.g. daily greetings, requests, instruction) do allow some important linguistic forms to become salient to the child/children.

Lastly, a point which is also related to the previous one, is that language socialisation is a long-term but essential process which then enables the child/children to grow into a competent member of the target language community (Spolsky, 2009). For such socialisation to take place, frequent engagement of the target language(s) is necessary. Most of the time, whether this condition is met is very much dependent on the FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY.

“Language socialization (LS) refers to the process by which individuals acquire, reproduce, and transform the knowledge and competence that enable them to participate appropriately within specific communities of language users. Thus, LS is fundamental to social life, given that all community members engage in practices of LS at numerous points in their lives, whether as relative experts or as relative novices.”

Lee & Bucholtz, 2015: Language Socialization Across Learning Spaces

2.3 Vital to language maintenance / revitalisation

Language maintenance generally refers to the efforts made by individuals or communities to preserve and sustain a particular language across generations, especially when it faces challenges due to contact with other languages. Building on the previous points, language proficiency and use are valuable tools for measuring the direction and degree of language maintenance or shift, as well as the level of bilingualism (active/passive, balanced/unbalanced) (Hollebeke, Struys & Agirdag, 2020). With this relationship in place, we can see how FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY influence the state of language maintenance within transnational, minority and immigrant families.

And thus as expected, many scholars see FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY as highly critical in bringing about the success (or lack thereof) in minority and heritage language maintenance (Curdt-Christiansen, 2013; Fishman, 1991; Hollebeke et al., 2022; King, Fogle & Logan-Terry, 2008; Schwartz, 2010, 2020; Spolsky, 2004, 2009, 2021). For instance, a family that consistently uses a heritage language at home and actively promotes its transmission is more likely to maintain that language. Conversely, a family that gradually shifts towards using a dominant societal language in the home will most likely contribute to the decline of the heritage language.

In fact, when a language becomes endangered, studies often highlight the indispensable role of FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY (Schwartz, 2010, 2020; Spolsky, 2004) in reversing language shift. Successful language revitalisation efforts often involve families actively adopting language policies that prioritise the use and transmission of the endangered language.

“While migrant children may receive ample input in societal language through school and the wider community, the main responsibility, in most cases, for providing and maintaining input in the child’s home language rests with the family. Without natural intergenerational interactions, children are unlikely even to hear the language, let alone develop it.”

Curdt-Christiansen, 2022

2.4 Leads to various socio-emotional outcomes

Most laypersons may not realise the relationship between a FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY and a range of socio-emotional outcomes, such as family cohesion, psychological well-being and positive/negative emotions. But if we drill in our thinking a bit deeper, it may be more straightforward than we think – and it is evidenced much in research (Hirsch & Lee, 2018; Hollebeke, Struys & Agirdag, 2020).

“Through language, relationships are built, upheld or lost; likewise, within families languages are learned, retained, or forgotten.”

Hirsch & Lee, 2018: Understanding the complexities of transnational family language policy

All three components of the FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY have a role in affecting the socio-emotional outcomes (Hollebeke, Struys & Agirdag, 2020). For instance, through shared language practices and beliefs, emotional connections among family members can be fostered:  Think about the shared expressions, inside jokes, and cultural references that form part of the ecosystem of familial interactions contributing a strong sense of belonging. This contributes to the development of personal identity and heritage.

On the flipside, when there is a misalignment between ideologies and practices among family members (e.g. older members favouring heritage language while younger members favouring the societal dominant language), family relations can be affected adversely (e.g. inability to have deep conversations).

In a typical situation of intergenerational language shift, grandparents and grandchildren usually speak different languages and have difficulty communicating (Fishman, 1991). This can trigger a range of emotions, from shame and disappointment to frustration and stress, within both generations. In my personal interactions with such cases, shedding tears and raised voices during such discussions are not unheard of.

2.5 Key in developing additive bilingualism / multilingualism

Additive bilingualism refers to the process or phenomenon of acquiring a second language (L2) while maintaining and continuing to develop the first language (L1). If we extrapolate to multilingualism, the spirit lies in the aspiration that any additional language(s) added to our linguistic repertoire does not impede on the progress or maintenance of our previously acquired/learned languages. This is why they are characterised as “additive” – increase in benefits.

Research suggests that additive bilingualism can have numerous cognitive and academic benefits, including enhanced executive function, improved metalinguistic awareness, and increased educational achievement (e.g. beyond academics) (Hollebeke, Struys & Agirdag, 2020). And indeed, parents are increasingly recognising the value of bilingualism and multilingualism, viewing it as an important responsibility, and for some, a hallmark of good parenting (King & Fogle, 2006).

For transnational, immigrant and minority families, the achievement of successful language maintenance can be seen as a thrust to additive bilingualism (e.g. child/children learning the dominant societal language at minimal cost to the home language). I’ve shared earlier how this can be contingent on the FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY.

Even within monolingual families where the societal dominant language is the mother tongue, a thoughtfully crafted FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY can also develop additive bilingualism (Duff, 2021; King & Fogle, 2006). For instance, a typical Anglophone family in the USA can choose to enrol their child in a dual language immersion school to learn Spanish alongside English, provide opportunities for the child to practise and use Spanish with Spanish L1 users in the community, and foster positive attitudes towards the Hispanic community. Such perspectives on FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY for additive bilingualism can be effective in facilitating bilingual education even for monolingual children.

3. What are the different major types of FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY implemented by parents?

As parents, we strive to provide the best for our children. While our decisions may not always be sound and informed (e.g. based on rational evidence), our choices are generally motivated by our desire to equip our children with the strengths and capabilities we deem essential for their future success.

And indeed, this is the case of the numerous parents who have participated as subjects in FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY research (Duff, 2021; Huang & Funoi, 2024; Kostoulas & Motsiou, 2020). With the diversity, a range of policies were codified and below are the major types for our reference. As we read on, we might also want to reflect on our own policies – our ideologies/beliefs about language, our actual language practices and our language management strategies. Also, while the any type of policy represent a specific combination of ideologies/beliefs, practices and management, the 3 components may not always be aligned in reality – even as much as we want to believe them to be – and that different types of policies may overlap with one another.

3.1 One Parent, One Language (OPOL) Approach

The One Parent One Language (OPOL) policy is an approach to raising bilingual children where each parent consistently and exclusively speaks one selected target language (e.g. usually the L1 of the parent) to the child (Kostoulas & Motsiou, 2020; Schalley & Eisenchlas, 2022; Schwartz, 2020). Parents adopting OPOL generally aim to provide children with strong foundations in two languages and avoid potential perceived confusion that can arise from mixed language input from the same parent. In that sense, both parents will not, as much as possible, speak the language of their spouse to the child/children.

Adopting the OPOL policy does not necessarily mean that both parents don’t share languages – in fact, they may share the two languages as personal L1s (e.g. Chinese Singaporeans who speak both English and Mandarin as their L1s). That taken into consideration, the dual-language combination can be two majority/minority languages or one majority language plus one minority language. Very rarely, though not impossible, is that one of the minority languages chosen is a foreign language that one of the parents is a skilled user of (e.g. a L1 user of Japanese who is a native speaker of English in the UK).

OPOL has surfaced to be the most popular type of FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY among the various types (Curdt-Christiansen, 2018; Kostoulas & Motsiou, 2020; Schalley & Eisenchlas, 2022). It somewhat reflect a bias towards the native speaker as the model of learning (Piller & Gerber, 2018) and strict language separation for communication and learning. Despite its popularity, parents who have chosen this approach explicitly find it challenging to implement consistently or that the results have been inconclusive in terms of the language learning outcomes (Kostoulas & Motsiou, 2020; Schalley & Eisenchlas, 2022; Spolsky, 2021).

3.2 Prioritisation of Minority Language: Minority Language at Home (ML@H) or Minority Language Everywhere

The next two approaches, though seemingly opposed, are actually two sides of the same coin, both prioritising the choice of a target language within the context minority-majority language settings. Curdt-Christiansen (2018, 2022) relate this to be a “hothouse” strategy which sort of seeks to maximise the engagement of the target language in the parents’ main locus of control (i.e. the home).

And so, the Minority Language at Home (ML@H) policy emphasises the use of the minority language in the home environment. Note that it is only ONE minority language, which thus implies a few things (Kostoulas & Motsiou, 2020; Schalley & Eisenchlas, 2022):

• both parents can speak the target minority language although there are cases where it is not the L1 of one of the parents;
• both parents have made a deliberate choice to prioritise this one minority language either because both shares the language as a native language or by choosing to only maintain one of the two (or more);
• both parents have confidence that the child has adequate exposure to the majority language beyond the home environment.

The version of ML@H with a higher degree is what is also coined as “Minority Language Everywhere”, where parents made an intentional choice to maximise the child’s engagement with the selected minority language (Curdt-Christiansen, 2022; Kostoulas & Motsiou, 2020). Herein, parents actively integrate the language into their daily lives, extending its use beyond the home environment. They seek opportunities to immerse their child in the language through various means, such as enrichment classes, community events, gatherings with elders, and digital communication with relatives.

Parents who follow this approach are driven by the aspiration of preserving the ethnolinguistic identity and heritage as encoded in the minority language with their child/children. They are also confident that their child/children will receive ample exposure to the dominant societal language in school and social settings to the extent that integration into the larger society will not pose an issue.

3.3 Prioritisation of Societal Dominant Language / International Language

On the other side of the coin, there are parents who made the choice to focus on the societal dominant language by making more space for it at home, thus somewhat giving up the minority language. Bilingualism is usually more of a concern for these parents as they worry about delays in development of the societal language.

While long-term benefits of bilingualism may still be acknowledged (e.g. they see some value in maintaining the minority language) by these parents, immediate concerns relating to the downstream impact of failing to maximise the growth of the societal language weighs higher in priority, such as the child’s inclusion into local social circles, and child’s adaptation to schooling and later educational success (Huang & Funoi, 2024; Piller & Gerber, 2018).

There are parents who, despite not being extensively researched, likely make up a sizeable group that believe in the importance of teaching their children widely used international/regional languages with significant economic value. Given this, even if the target language is not part of the family or society’s linguistic repertoire, these parents will still go the extra mile to invest a substantial amount of resources to ensure their children become proficient in the desired international language. In fact, there are parents who would risk defying government rules to guarantee that their children master that international language (Duff, 2021).

3.4 Situational Selection / One Situation One Language

If we say that OPOL seeks to allocate language to a specific interlocutor (parent) for the child, then the FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY that follows Situational Selection or One Situation One Language (OSOL) approach basically seeks to restrict selected languages to specific contexts or settings. In other words, it is a form of rule-based codeswitching (Kostoulas & Motsiou, 2020).

This approach encourages parents to establish clear boundaries for the usage of various languages in their family. By doing so, they aim to socialise their children to become more aware of the specific language to be used in each context. For instance, parents might choose to use English for academic discussions and Spanish for family gatherings. This method promotes a deep understanding of each language’s role in the daily lives of the child.

There are at least two core beliefs that underpin such an approach. First is that these parents regard bilingualism or multilingualism as a skill that entails the selection of appropriate codes from a broad range of options (Kostoulas & Motsiou, 2020). Second, they typically believe that code-mixing should be avoided, with languages being used exclusively when necessary.

3.5 Language Separation

And so, the last point provides the best basis to segue to this policy. It’s no exaggeration to say that many families adopting the previous policies often endeavour to implement language separation policies – no code-mixing, exclusive use of a target language for its intended purpose (be it by parent, situational context, or as the sole language for all situations). Parents commonly cite the prevention of language confusion and the upholding of social acceptability in language use as their primary reasons. That being said, validity of such claims is also highly contested in research.

In actual practice, language separation is very challenging to upkeep in a bilingual/multilingual context. Scholars have also found “translanguaging” to be prevalent in families that claim to maintain language separation – it is frequently challenged by the child/children and parents may also unconsciously thwart their own principles (Kostoulas & Motsiou, 2020). I’ve also shared in an article focusing on unpacking translanguaging and why it is part of growing into a bilingual/multilingual.

3.6 Mixed Language Policy / Translanguaging

Parents from the other camp are thus open to a mixed language policy or translanguaging in general. Simply speaking, they don’t necessarily enforce or adhere to rules on using a specific language exclusively. To a certain degree, they might even use it actively for scaffolding or as means of linguistic co-experimentation.

On one hand, parents adopting this approach may be engaging the different languages in the linguistic repertoire in a productive way – purposeful with specific communicative and educational outcomes. On the other hand, parents may be adopting this approach just simply because they are not consciously adopting any of the previous policies.

Not all scholars are approving of this approach, especially when it is employed in a laissez-faire manner (Curdt-Christiansen, 2022). In a sense, the child/children may form linguistic habits that are so entrenched that adapting to diverse contexts demanding strict monolingual use, such as schools, could prove difficult later on.

3.7 Communicative practices across modes

This last policy type revolves around the communicative contexts of language use within the family. Parents may demonstrate varying preferences for how a target language is used across different modes (e.g., written, digital). In the absence of overt preferences relating to language, parents may also implement practices and management strategies that does form part of a FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY.

Why is this worth mentioning? Parents have varying perspectives on language use (e.g. literacy, online use, AI interaction), with some enforcing strict rules (e.g. no-device rules in family) and others adopting a liberal approach (e.g. laissez-faire on digital communications) or may even promote regular engagement (e.g. literacy development). This broad range of choices could potentially result in disparate outcomes, both in language development and beyond.

Notwithstanding such, research on FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY that focuses on a broader spectrum of modes are still in an emergent stage rather than fully developed. Given this premise, understanding the impact of various policies that shape how language manifests across various communication modes within the family may require insights from research in other disciplines (e.g. multimodal communicative practices).

Making a difference in language education, one sip at a time. Support my work with a coffee?

CONCLUSION: Considerations for a Family Language Policy

In reaching this point, I believe parents among us would have a better understanding of a FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY and the role it plays in the holistic development of a child. I hope through this understanding, we can have a better framework in crafting out our own FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY, with explicit insights to the family’s language ideologies/beliefs, language practices and language management approaches.

Moving on, I’d extend this learning to also help our parents understand the effectiveness of different approaches, how children may also shape the policy and certain discourse strategies that may help us. Do stay tuned!

Thank you for reading! If you like what you are reading, do subscribe to our mailing list to receive updated resources and tips for language educators. Please also feel free to provide us any feedback or suggestions on content that you would like covered.