Content uploaded by Qi Shen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Qi Shen on Nov 25, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rclp20
Current Issues in Language Planning
ISSN: 1466-4208 (Print) 1747-7506 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rclp20
An ecological approach to family language policy
research: the case of Miao families in China
Qi Shen, Lian Wang & Xuesong (Andy) Gao
To cite this article: Qi Shen, Lian Wang & Xuesong (Andy) Gao (2020): An ecological approach
to family language policy research: the case of Miao families in China, Current Issues in Language
Planning, DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2020.1764730
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1764730
Published online: 12 May 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 16
View related articles
View Crossmark data
An ecological approach to family language policy research:
the case of Miao families in China
Qi Shen
a
, Lian Wang
b
and Xuesong (Andy) Gao
c
a
Center for Language Planning and Global Governance, Tongji University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of
China;
b
School of Foreign Languages, Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, Guizhou, People’s
Republic of China;
c
School of Education, University of New South Wales Australia, Sydney, Australia
ABSTRACT
This paper reports on a study that used an ecological approach to
explore family language policy and practice among Miao families
in China. In the study, we surveyed 900 Miao families and
interviewed 20 parents with regard to their language practices,
ideologies, and management efforts, to identify what mediated
their family language policy decisions. The analysis of the data
revealed a noticeable decline in the use of the Miao language
across different generations, and an inconsistency between
language ideologies and language management efforts. These
findings suggest that family language policy decisions are
profoundly mediated by the language policies and practices
promoted in different organizations at meso (e.g. school) and
macro (e.g. national) levels, which constitute an exo-system
external to the family domain. We conclude that it is necessary for
all languages to be recognized as resources so that a favorable
discursive space can be maintained for ethnic languages such as
the Miao language in China.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 29 April 2020
Accepted 1 May 2020
KEYWORDS
Ecological approach; family
language policy; exo-system;
Miao language
Introduction
The conceptualization of language policy not only as a text but also as a process mediated
by various social agents has motivated researchers to explore how these agents participate
in relevant policy processes at different levels (e.g. Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008; McCarty,
2014; Tollefson & Pérez-Milans, 2018). Recent studies have begun to examine the
domain of family as a crucial site for the enactment and implementation of language pol-
icies at the micro level (in contrast to the nation-state macro level) (e.g. Curdt-Christian-
sen, 2013; Danjo, 2018; Fishman, 2004; Spolsky, 2004,2012). These studies constitute an
area of inquiry of growing importance, known as family language policy research and
revealing that the processes and practices within families contribute significantly to the
promotion and sustaining of languages. Nevertheless, it is always important to note that
relevant processes and practices in the family domain unfold within a wider context,
where different ideological discourses are promoted and policy practices are enacted by
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Lian Wang 200301039@mail.gufe.edu.cn School of Foreign Languages, Guizhou University of Finance
and Economics, Guizhou, People’s Republic of China
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING
https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1764730
powerful agents at higher levels, such as government departments (e.g. Kang, 2015;
Spolsky, 2004; Zhang & Tsung, 2019).
Research has noted that a variety of contextual factors contribute to the language-
related beliefs and practices within families, such as national language policy and socio-
economic status, which profoundly mediate the popular perceptions of particular
languages and individuals’access to resources that can be used to sustain their use (e.g.
Curdt-Christiansen, 2009; Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020; Spolsky, 2004; Xu,
2019). The promotion and sustaining of particular languages require concerted efforts
at different levels, such as individuals’motivation to learn and use languages, parents’posi-
tive attitudes and committed practices, as well as favorable national language policies (e.g.
De Houwer, 1999; Kang, 2015; Ó hlfearnáin, 2013,2015;Xu,2019; Zhang & Tsung, 2019).
In other words, a focus on family language policy should not distract researchers from cri-
tically examining meso (e.g. school) and macro (e.g. national policy) contextual processes
that constitute exo-systems external to the family site when appreciating why and how
particular languages are promoted and sustained within families (e.g. Gallo & Hornberger,
2019; Han et al., 2019; Hornberger, 2002; Ó hlfearnáin, 2013,2015). Therefore, this study
explores how the language ideology and practice within ethnic Miao (苗族, also known as
‘Hmong’) families may be understood, taking an ecological approach with reference to the
meso and macro contextual processes in China.
The study was conducted in an autonomous Miao county in Guizhou Province, South-
west China. A total of six million Miao language speakers inhabit primarily Guizhou,
Hunan, and Yunnan Provinces and the Zhuang Autonomous Region of Guangxi, moun-
tain areas that are economically underdeveloped compared with metropolitan cities along
the coastal areas. Since 2016, like other ethnic regions in China, this county has been on
the national agenda in the five-year plan for poverty alleviation. With a population of
1,68,000 residents, the Miao county is recognized as the most important autonomous
Miao county in the country, and most families use the Miao language as well as regional
varieties of Chinese and Putonghua (the standard spoken variety of Chinese). Although it
is one of the oldest ethnic languages with more than ten language varieties, the Miao
language has experienced a sharp decline in recent years (Chen, 2013;Hu,2011; Shi
et al., 2017). However, little research has been conducted on the maintenance of the
Miao language in the past 20 years. As part of the government’s initiative to protect endan-
gered languages (语言保护, yuyan baohu or 语保, yubao) (e.g. Shen & Gao, 2019), there
have been efforts to promote ethnic culture in kindergartens and primary schools in the
county since 2018. We conducted this inquiry to find out whether these efforts have motiv-
ated Miao families to use the Miao language more within the context of this nationwide
initiative. Informed by Spolsky’s(2004) family language policy framework, the study
addressed the following research questions:
1. How does language practice evolve across two generations in Miao families?
2. What language ideologies do Miao parents have?
3. What mediates the language ideology, management efforts, and language practices in
Miao families?
2Q. SHEN ET AL.
In the next sections we will present a brief introduction to family language policy,
before moving on to describe the sociolinguistic context surrounding family language
policy in China.
Family language policy
In contrast to the national language policy, which is often seen as ‘a political decision’to
manage language use ‘in a given society,’family language policy can be regarded as ‘a
deliberate attempt’to influence the use of particular languages ‘within home domains
and among family members’(Curdt-Christiansen, 2009, p. 352). Spolsky (2004) theorizes
family language policy in terms of three interrelated elements, including language practice,
language ideology, and language management. Language practices refer to ‘the habitual
pattern of selecting among the varieties that make up its linguistic repertoire,’while
language management involves ‘specificefforts to modify or influence that practice by
any kind of language intervention, planning or management’(2004, p. 5). Underpinning
language practices and management efforts are language ideology, which consists of ‘ideas,
values, beliefs, attitudes, prejudices, myths, religious structures and all the other cultural
“baggage”’ that individuals relate to particular languages (Schiffman, 2006, p. 112; Zhu
& Li, 2016). Such theorization draws attention to what is happening in relation to
languages within the family domain, highlighting the profound mediation of parental
characteristics, such as educational background, immigration experiences, and cultural
factors, on their language practices and management efforts.
Researchers have also reminded us that family language practices and management
are closely associated with a host of contextual factors and processes such as families’
socioeconomic status (e.g. Curdt-Christiansen, 2009; Li et al., 2019). For instance,
parents from a particular social class often recognize symbolic values that particular
languages have for them, and are willing to invest heavily in the learning of high-
status languages among their children. While their efforts to promote the learning of
particular languages deserve attention, these efforts need to be understood with refer-
ence to the contextual conditions that make these languages valuable. Such examinations
are particularly important to help address growing social inequity as more and more
individuals appropriate ‘linguistic resources’as a means to achieve ‘financial gain’(De
Costa et al., 2016; Douglas Fir Group, 2016; Preece, 2019,pp. 404–405; Wee, 2003)
through family investment. They draw attention to sociolinguistic, sociocultural, socio-
economic, and sociopolitical contexts that profoundly mediate individuals’ideological
beliefs about languages in orienting and sustaining their language practices and manage-
ment efforts (Curdt-Christiansen, 2016; Kang, 2015; Ó hlfearnáin, 2013,2015; Spolsky,
2004).
Family language policy in China
China has a high level of linguistic heterogeneity, with over 290 languages spoken by 55
ethnic minority groups (e.g. Mongolian, Tibetan, and Uyghur) in addition to ‘2000
more or less distinct dialects or subdialects’of the Chinese language (e.g. Cantonese,
Fukienese, and Shanghainese) (Li, 2006, p. 150). The Chinese government has been
known for its instrumentalist approach to language policy making, reflected in its
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 3
inclination to justify the existence of a particular language in the country ‘in terms of its
usefulness in achieving specific utilitarian goals such as access to economic development
or social mobility’(Wee, 2008, p. 32). The national standard language is seen as closely
associated with development and civilization, while ethnic group languages and regional
Chinese varieties are associated with ‘tradition’and ‘cultural identity’(Tan & Rubdy,
2008, p. 11). Over the years the Chinese government has been committed to promoting
a national standard variety of spoken Chinese, Putonghua and the promulgation of Puton-
ghua as the lingua franca in situations such as public service and education, as regulated by
The Law of the National Commonly Used Language and Script of the People’s Republic of
China.
Informed by the burgeoning research on family language policy in other parts of the
world, Chinese scholars contribute to this field with a particular focus on the language
choices in multilingual education between Putonghua, regional language varieties (dia-
lects), and English in the families (Curdt-Christiansen & Wang, 2018; Li et al., 2019).
While parental agency has been observed among urban middle-class families who
encourage children’s acquisition of English and Putonghua in expectation of upward
social and economic movement, parents of ethnic families residing in underdeveloped
rural areas are much more conflicted when choosing between their mother tongues
and Putonghua for their children. Putonghua has been given wider communicative
value to help alleviate poverty, and it is sometimes portrayed as a must for getting
well-paid jobs such as posts in the civil service (e.g. Xu, 2019), with the consequence
that the languages spoken by ethnic groups and regional varieties of the Chinese
language are increasingly confined to use within the private home domain. It is not sur-
prising to learn that many ethnic languages and regional Chinese varieties are in decline,
even approaching disappearance (e.g. Shen & Gao, 2019;Xu,2019; Zhang & Tsung,
2019).
In response to the crisis facing these languages, the Chinese government has also
launched a nationwide preservation effort (yuyan baohu or yubao) (Shen & Gao, 2019).
The yubao initiative reflects the notion of languages as ‘a national resource that needs
to be protected and utilized,’embodied in the eleventh five-year plan of the State Language
Commission and highlighting the role of languages in the government’sefforts to push
forward ‘historical development and social progress’(Zhao et al., 2019). Reflecting the
aforementioned instrumental approach in language policymaking, languages are seen as
‘an essential element of culture and a defining marker for culture (文化的基础要素和
鲜明标志)’(Shen & Gao, 2019, p. 7).
For this reason, various government departments including the State Language Com-
mission and the Ministry of Education have started funding projects that promote the
use of endangered languages in cultural forms such as opera and folk songs. It remains
questionable whether such measures can effectively revitalize these endangered
languages. In light of shifting linguistic conditions, Postiglione (2014) contends that
China may be at a crossroads and may shift to ‘plural monoculturalism,’in which
‘ethnic minority groups emphasize their cultural identities above those of the nation
and limit their potential to take on multiple roles in national development’(p. 43).
In the meantime, however, it might also shift towards ‘harmonious multiculturalism,’
which would ‘align with the Confucian tradition of “harmonious yet different”and
coincide with the state’s campaign for a harmonious society’(also see Pérez-Milans,
4Q. SHEN ET AL.
2013; Postiglione, 2014, p. 43). It was within this context that we conducted our inquiry
into the efforts to promote and sustain the use of the Miao language among Miao
families in China.
The study
The inquiry adopted a mixed method approach that involved the use of questionnaires
and qualitative interviews through three rounds of fieldwork during September/October
2018, March/April 2019, and July/August 2019. We conducted the survey and interviews
with the families of children in two kindergartens and three primary schools in the Miao
autonomous county. The participants were parents in Miao families, who use the Miao
language as their mother tongue. We recruited the participants via our contacts in the kin-
dergartens and primary schools because the parents play a significant role in influencing
the language attitudes and use of their children (De Houwer, 1999), who were young and
had relatively limited socialization beyond the family setting.
Quantitative data collection
The questionnaire has four components within the rubric of family language policy,
namely basic information about the respondents and their language ideologies, language
practices, and language management. It consists of questions concerning parents’percep-
tions and attitudes towards the Miao language and their language management within
their families, such as ‘Do you agree that the Miao language is representative of your iden-
tity or ethnic group?,’‘Do you agree that family context could be a site for preserving the
Miao language?,’‘Do you often ask your children to learn and speak the Miao language?,’
etc. The questionnaire uses a Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree or have never done) to 5
(absolutely agree or have always done).
We developed the instrument after consulting language policy and planning experts
and elders in Miao families, before piloting the instrument with 30 Miao families. The
pilot test results helped us to revise the questionnaire items, as well as establish the dimen-
sions and the items within each dimension, with special attention to the correlation
between parents’language ideologies and their language practice. The participants’ques-
tionnaire responses were collected via the WEN JUAN XING tool (www.sojump.com),
which is a professional online survey, evaluation, and voting platform.
Through the online survey platform, we distributed 900 questionnaires and received
814 valid questionnaires in return, constituting a 90.4% return rate. Among the returned
questionnaires, 478 were from mothers and 336 were from fathers. 289 questionnaires
were returned from the kindergartens and 527 from the primary schools.
Qualitative data collection
We conducted three rounds of semi-structured interviews in our field visits, during which
we investigated the public response to the promotion of ethnic culture in kindergartens
and primary schools from 2018 to 2019. The interview data were collected to supplement
the questionnaire findings, with questions that probed into the parents’language attitudes
towards language preservation. A group of 20 parents who participated in the survey
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 5
consented to share their views and opinions in the interviews, among whom nine parents
were from kindergartens and eleven from primary schools. As can be seen from Table 1,
half of the interviewed parents were fathers and the other half were mothers. Participants
were encouraged to express their viewpoints and perceptions about the use of the Miao
language, Putonghua, and their regional Chinese varieties based on their own experiences.
Semi-structured questions included open-ended inquiries about the parents’choice of
languages in the family, their attitudes towards ethnic language preservation, and their
beliefs about the future transmission of the Miao language. As the participants claimed
to speak Putonghua fluently, face-to-face interviews were conducted in Putonghua with
all the participants and each interview lasted between 30 and 50 min. All the interviews
were audiotaped for transcription. Field notes were also taken during the interviews
with participants at different sites (e.g. teahouses, schools, and restaurants).
Data analysis
Based on a pilot survey with 30 participants, the items of the instrument were modified to
align with the factors influencing the parents’language ideology before the online survey.
The questionnaire data were analyzed using SPSS 18.0, and the analysis identified that the
instrument has a high internal consistency with Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients of .793 for
the dimension of language ideology, .768 for language practice, and .755 for language
practice.
When reporting, we used descriptive statistical analysis to capture the general trends in
the statistical data. To examine the factors affecting family language ideology, one-way
ANOVA analyses were carried out between the parents’language ideology on the one
hand, and the parents’self-reported proficiency in the Miao language, education back-
ground, family income per month and professions on the other hand.
Qualitative data analysis started during the fieldwork itself, when we took notes and
reflected on the interviews. All three rounds of interviews were first transcribed in
Table 1. Profile of 20 parents in the interview phase.
Parents (pseudonyms) Gender Self-reported proficiency in Miao Profession Child’s age Parent’s age
Liu Juan F Average Self-employed 5 29
Yang Jun M Good Farmer 7 31
Liao Yu F Excellent Teacher 6 31
Zhang Xian F Good Civil servant 8 32
Zhang Dan M Good Farmer 6 32
Lu Fan F Average Corporate worker 8 32
Kang Fu M Good Farmer 7 30
Wu Nian F Excellent Self-employed 8 37
Liu Kun M Excellent Public employee 7 36
Wu Qiang M Good Farmer 8 34
Pan Yu F Poor Corporate worker 6 29
Wang Li F Excellent Teacher 9 32
Zhao Lian F Moderate Farmer 8 30
Gao Bing M Moderate Self-employed 6 31
Yang Feng M Excellent School principal 9 35
Yang Min F Good Farmer 4 28
Fan Lun M Poor Farmer 5 29
Chen Lin F Good Self-employed 6 30
Feng Yu M Moderate Farmer 8 34
Bai Fan M Good Teacher 5 29
6Q. SHEN ET AL.
Chinese and then translated into English as presented in this article. After the translated
transcript of an interview had been double-checked by back translation, we analyzed it
qualitatively by categorizing the content within Spolsky’s(2004) family language policy
framework, which consists of ideology, practice, and management, as well as identifying
the features of language use and practice within the Miao families across generations.
The interview transcripts went through at least four rounds of analysis, in which we famil-
iarized ourselves with each transcript, and then identified themes (viz. language ideologies,
language management, and language practice) in relation to the framework in each tran-
script, refining the identified themes to gain an in-depth understanding before we estab-
lished interconnections among the themes across all the transcripts. The analysis of the
survey and qualitative data helped to reveal the trends in the use of the Miao language
among the Miao families, as well as the relevant factors and processes underlying the
identified trends, which will be elaborated in the coming section.
Results
The analysis of the data identified a decline in the use of the Miao language across two
generations of family members. The analysis also revealed inconsistencies between
language ideologies and language management efforts, suggesting a need to contextualize
our understanding of the parents’language ideologies and management efforts within the
larger socio-contextual conditions or exo-system external to the family domain. These
findings will be elaborated in the following sections.
Shifting language practices across two generations
The data generated highly complex pictures of language practices across generations in
the participants’families, noting variations in language practice in different situations
such as parents vs. children and children vs. parents. Language practice involving
different language varieties was found to be commonplace. As can be seen in Table
2, 15.4% of the participants reported using Putonghua, 9.83% used the Miao language,
and 6.27% of them used regional Chinese varieties for communication with their chil-
dren at home. More than 50% used a mixture of Putonghua and the Miao language or
regional Chinese varieties, while 7.86% reported using a mixture of the Miao language
Table 2. Parents’language practices in numbers and percentages (n= 814).
Scenarios
Putonghua
only
Miao
language
only
Putonghua and
the Miao
language
Putonghua and
regional Chinese
varieties
Regional
Chinese
varieties only
Miao language
and regional
Chinese varieties
Parents
talking to
children
15.36% 9.83% 43.73% 16.95% 6.27% 7.86%
Children
talking to
parents
25.06% 7.37% 34.64% 15.23% 10.81% 6.88%
Parents
talking to
their
spouses
64.99% 13.02% 21.99%
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 7
and regional Chinese varieties. This means that Putonghua is the most popular
language variety for the surveyed parents when they were communicating with their
children, even though 86.86% of them speak the Miao language as their first language
themselves.
The strength of Putonghua is further shown in the data regarding the children’s
language choices when communicating with their parents at home. 25.06% of the
parents reported that their children use Putonghua, 34.64% used a mixture of Putonghua
and the Miao language, and 15.23% used a mixture of Putonghua and regional Chinese
varieties, while less than 15% of the children spoke the Miao language or a mixture of
the Miao language and regional Chinese varieties when they were communicating with
their parents.
In contrast, the parents’language choices closely mirrored their linguistic backgrounds
when they were speaking to their spouses. In these contexts, 65% of them used the Miao
language, while only 22% used regional Chinese varieties only. This contrast in linguistic
variety at home suggests that these parents might have sacrificed the use of their first
language at home in order to help their children acquire Putonghua, an issue identified
in our analysis of the interview data. These figures suggest a noticeable decline in the
use of the Miao language across two generations.
Our interview data with the parents confirmed the picture of the children’s declining
ability with the Miao language that was suggested by the survey data. The interviewed par-
ticipants mentioned that most Miao children could understand the Miao language, but
had difficulties expressing themselves because ‘children are encouraged to learn and
speak Putonghua and not very active in speaking the Miao language at home’(Yang
Jun, a father, first round of fieldwork):
Extract 1
[现在苗语的使用空间很有限了。除了老人们之外,我们这里的公共场合,如在银行、
医院和学校,年轻人和孩子们都不怎么说苗语了]
(刘娟,母亲,第二次访谈)
Nowadays, the Miao language has very limited usage. Except for the elderly people –young
people and kids are not often heard speaking the Miao language in public places such as
banks, hospitals and schools.
(Liu Juan, mother, second fieldwork; translation of the Chinese quote)
(Note: hereafter, because of limited space, only English translations will be presented)
The declining Miao language capacity among children may have to do with the fact that
the interviewed parents often used Putonghua instead of the Miao language or regional
Chinese varieties when communicating with their children. Only three parents reported
in the interviews that they insisted on using the Miao language with their children. It
seems that the national initiative to promote the use of Putonghua as the national
lingua franca in areas populated by ethnic minority groups has been as effective in this
area as it has in other regions (e.g. Zhang & Tsung, 2019). The space for using ethnic
languages has become increasingly constrained as a result of this successful national
language policy implementation.
It seems that language practice in places like schools also profoundly impacts the use of
languages between children and parents in family settings. In our fieldwork, kindergartens
8Q. SHEN ET AL.
appear to be the sites where children’s language practices evolve most noticeably. As an
example, Liao Yu told us that her daughter experienced a noticeable shift from the
Miao language to Putonghua in the kindergarten, which was commonly observed by
the parents in the interview:
Extract 2
[Interviewer] Do you often speak the Miao language at home with your daughter?
[Liao Yu] Basically, we speak it (the Miao language) among adults and would speak it with
the child before she went to kindergarten.
[Interviewer] What about after she went to kindergarten?
[Liao Yu] I began to note her switch from the Miao language to Putonghua at home since she
entered kindergarten two years ago. Now that she speaks Putonghua after school, we have to
speak Putonghua with her at home.
It may be inferred that the use of Putonghua as the medium of instruction in kindergarten
demotivated the children from using the Miao language and other regional varieties of
Chinese at home. Like Liao Yu’s daughter, other children were also unwilling to use the
Miao language and other regional varieties of Chinese. The use of Putonghua as the
medium of instruction in primary and secondary schools elevates Putonghua to the
status of a lingua franca in the academic studies and daily life of these children. The preva-
lence of Putonghua has been further bolstered by the growing influence of the Han
Chinese culture in the urban development of the local area. The children’s recognition
of and emotional identification with Putonghua have been growing, while they have
begun to lose interest in learning the Miao language. One parent noted that:
Extract 3
I would ask my son to speak the Miao language for daily life, but he was not very interested in
speaking it. I do not teach him the Miao language as he is usually busy with assignments after
school.
(Zhang Xian, a mother, third fieldwork)
The interview data revealed that mothers were more agentive in language management
and took care of their children’s language development at home, partly because of tra-
ditional gender responsibilities in Miao families. Unfortunately, in most cases, and as in
the one above, the parents often chose not to interfere in their children’s language practice,
and even accommodated their language choices by using Putonghua with the children
themselves.
Language ideologies in Miao families
The analysis identified two types of language ideologies among the parents, namely value
evaluation and emotive evaluation (e.g. Tan & Rubdy, 2008). Value evaluation relates to
the parents’reference to a particular language as ‘a useful language’and as ‘important,’
while emotive evaluation reveals how parents feel about a particular language, e.g.
‘Miao folk songs are beautiful’and ‘The Miao language is a language of intimacy.’
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 9
The data suggest that 70% of the parents believe that the Miao language and Putonghua
are equally important for their children, and 89% of them feel that their children must
learn to master the Miao language. 81% of the parents believe that they should use the
Miao language to interact with their children. However, when asked whether speaking
the Miao language would interfere with their children’s learning of Putonghua, 60% of
them did not think that it would, although 22% of the parents were unsure. In short,
most of the parents placed equal importance on their children learning the Miao language
and learning Putonghua. They would like to see their children become bilingual speakers.
In particular, language plays an important role in sustaining emotional bonds and cul-
tural identity within the family. The parents acknowledged the value of the Miao language
in their emotional identification and social interaction, which are at the core of their
language ideology. One parent noted:
Extract 4
If my child does not speak the Miao language, he cannot interact with our relatives in our
hometown. Since he is a Miao, he needs to speak at least some Miao language. Otherwise,
he would be laughed at and looked down upon.
(Liu Kun, a father, second fieldwork)
As can be seen in the extract above, the parent associated the Miao language with the Miao
identity, with competence in the language symbolizing membership of the Miao commu-
nity. Therefore, the Miao language is not just a tool for communication; it is also a carrier
of historical, cultural, and spiritual heritage, which bonds the Miao people together into
one big family (e.g. Danjo, 2018; Zhu & Li, 2016).
The parents in the study also saw language skills as important cultural capital that indi-
viduals could later transform into economic or social capital (Bourdieu, 1986), enabling
them to socialize with other individuals and access career development opportunities.
For this reason, they made value evaluations of different languages in terms of their use-
fulness and status. As an example, the inclusion of Miao language skills in the recruitment
criteria for public servants in local government strengthened the perception that the Miao
language has high value in the local society. One parent highlighted the significance of this
inclusion as follows:
Extract 5
Frontline public servants are required to speak the Miao language because they need the
language to interact with farmers in rural areas. This means that it is important for us to
speak the Miao language. I will encourage my son to speak more Miao with our relatives
in our hometown.
(Wu Qiang, a father, second fieldwork)
Though this particular parent was inspired to promote the use of the Miao language in his
family by the inclusion of the language in local government recruitment criteria, he per-
ceived that the utility of the Miao language was still restricted to rural areas and frontline
public servants. This means that value evaluations of languages do not always have the
same effect on the parents as emotive evaluations, in terms of their family language prac-
tice and management efforts. When the two evaluations are in conflict with each other,
value evaluations often prevail in helping the parents to choose the language that has
more practical value.
10 Q. SHEN ET AL.
Since the Miao language has no standard form, regional varieties of the language are
quite different from each other in terms of vocabulary. The same variety of the language
may have phonological variations, which may cause communication breakdowns even
among Miao people living in neighboring counties. The diversity within the Miao
language creates a significant challenge for the developers of materials to support the
learning and use of the Miao language. Due to the shortage of appropriate materials for
teaching and learning the Miao language, teaching of the language focuses only on speak-
ing and listening. One of the reasons for this lies in the fact that no effective writing system
has been developed for the Miao language. In addition, Putonghua is mandated as the
medium of instruction in schools by the national language policy, and the use of the
Miao language as the medium of instruction is quite limited. In this context, it comes
as no surprise that parents believe that the use of the Miao language needs to be
confined to particular spaces such as within the family (also see Tan & Rubdy, 2008).
At least four parents even complained that the learning of the Miao language may under-
mine the children’s learning of standard Putonghua:
Extract 6
I don’t think the Miao language is important for my kid in the future, as speaking the Miao
language or the regional Chinese variety might influence his pronunciation of Putonghua.
Besides, the Miao language itself has different language variations, which would inevitably
hinder our daily communications.
(Pan Yu, a mother, third field work)
For this reason, some parents discouraged their children from speaking the Miao
language, which creates a further constraint on the use of the Miao language in the
domain of family.
Mediated language ideologies, management efforts and practices
The findings as shown in Table 3 indicate significant differences between parents’language
ideologies and their self-reported proficiency in the Miao language (Fvalue = 6.984, p<
0.01), their education backgrounds (Fvalue = 5.620, p< 0.01), family income per month
(Fvalue = 4.174, p< 0.01), and the parents’professions (Fvalue = 4.214, p< 0.01). It is
noteworthy that the parents’self-reported proficiency and their education background
contributed significantly to their language choices for their children. We found that
parents with higher proficiency in the Miao language and with education up to junior
college or university degree level had a relatively high sense of identity associated with
their mother tongue, and had more motivation to support their children’s learning of
the Miao language and bilingual education. These findings echo King and Fogle’s
(2006) work among bilingual parents at home. One of our participants who held a Bache-
lor’s degree noted:
Extract 7
I don’t think learning the Miao language would hinder my kid’s proficiency at speaking
Putonghua. As for the language learning issue, the more the better.
(Wang Li, a mother, third fieldwork)
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 11
Table 3. Language ideology and parents’differences.
Parents’self-reported proficiency in the Miao language(MD ± SD)
Excellent
(n= 567)
Fairly good
(n= 164)
Average
(n= 61)
Poor
(n=22)
Fp
3.39 ± 0.63 3.18 ± 0.64 3.18 ± 0.68 3.10 ± 0.64 6.984 0.000**
Education Background (MD ± SD)
Illiterate
(n=29)
Primary
(n=70)
Junior High
(n= 312)
Senior High
(n=52)
Technical school
(n= 63)
Junior college
(n= 105)
University
(n= 183)
Fp
3.20 ± 0.69 3.08 ± 0.58 3.28 ± 0.59 3.23 ± 0.55 3.19 ± 0.74 3.50 ± 0.62 3.50 ± 0.70 5.620 0.000**
Family income per month(RMB)(MD ± SD)
1000 below
(n= 173)
1001–2000
(n= 171)
2002–4000
(n= 224)
4001–6000
(n=130)
6001–8000
(n= 66)
8001–10,000
(n= 36)
10,000 above
(n= 14)
Fp
3.20 ± 0.65 3.32 ± 0.52 3.26 ± 0.68 3.47± 0.62 3.49 ± 0.73 3.53 ± 0.62 3.47 ± 0.62 4.174 0.000**
Parents’professions(MD ± SD)
Civil Servant
(n=35)
Teacher
(n=166)
Public employee
(n= 30)
Corporate employee
(n=55)
Farmer
(n= 293)
Soldier
(n=4)
Self-employed
(n= 169)
other
(n= 62)
F
3.44 ± 0.69 3.50 ± 0.75 3.41 ± 0.43 3.23 ± 0.61 3.28 ± 0.57 3.94 ± 0.68 3.28 ± 0.59 3.10 ± 0.75 4.214
*p< 0.05,**p< 0.01.
12 Q. SHEN ET AL.
It is clear from this extract that parents with more linguistic and cultural capital of their
own tended to facilitate their children’s language education by providing more linguistic
resources and diverse linguistic repertoires.
Family income is another important factor in shaping parents’language ideologies.
The results show a clear-cut divide around the level of 4000 RMB (around 600 USD)
per month in terms of family income. No significant differences in language ideol-
ogies were found among the family income categories below 4000 RMB per month
or those above 6000 RMB (around 850 USD) per month. It is generally understood
that families with lower incomes are more instrumental in encouraging their children
to acquire Putonghua instead of the Miao language. In the process of poverty allevia-
tion, Putonghua has been regarded by these families as a lucrative tool to build com-
municative competence. However, economic capital may not necessarily play a
significant role in influencing the language ideology of preserving the Miao language
among the better-offfamilies in our study. These families might also seek more room
for multilingual learning opportunities, such as English and other foreign languages
for their children.
Associated with family income, there is also a clear-cut difference among the parents’
professions. Comparatively, parents who were working as civil servants, teachers, public
employees, or in the military were more open-minded and more supportive of bilingual
education for their children, indicating their involvement in the preservation of the
Miao language.
The questionnaire data also revealed that the parents’self-reported language profi-
ciency mediated their language management efforts. Parents who were proficient in the
Miao language were inclined to encourage their children to speak the Miao language at
home and devoted greater efforts to supporting their children’s endeavors to learn it. It
was also observed that code-switching between the Miao language and Putonghua was
encouraged by agentive parents with their bilingualism acting as an important mediator
of their language management efforts at home.
The analysis further revealed noticeable inconsistencies between language manage-
ment efforts and language ideologies in the Miao families. The survey results showed
that 47% of the parents encouraged their children to speak Putonghua at home, while
44% of them encouraged their children to speak the Miao language. Language manage-
ment efforts prioritizing the use of Putonghua at home contrast with parents’value
evaluations of their mother tongue. Similar inconsistency between language manage-
ment efforts and language ideology was also observed in the parents’efforts in relation
to language acquisition planning. 60% of the parents reported that they would teach the
Miao language to their children at home, but it was surprising to note that 14 out of the
20 participants in the interviews were not confident in maintaining their choice of the
Miao language in the long run. The earlier analysis also identified that the declining use
of the Miao language is related to the parents’desire to have their children educated in
the medium of Putonghua.
It must be noted that the Chinese government has launched initiatives to preserve local
cultures since 2018 (e.g. Shen & Gao, 2019), and some of these initiatives involve the pro-
motion of local, ethnic cultures in primary schools and secondary schools across the
country. Nevertheless, even though the county government has been actively sustaining
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 13
the vitality of the Miao language by promoting Miao culture over the last few years, it
remains a challenge for local schools to offer the Miao language as an elective subject,
or to deliver bilingual teaching in both Putonghua and the Miao language. This is
shown in an interview with one parent who happened to be a principal at a local
primary school:
Extract 8
In recent years, our school has been engaged in activities to preserve the Miao culture in the
classroom. Students are encouraged to sing indigenous songs in the Miao language. But it is
not easy to teach them unless we have textbooks based on a writing system for the Miao
language. What’s more, we don’t have qualified teachers who can speak the Miao language.
(Yang Feng, a father and school principal, third fieldwork)
It can be seen from this extract that policy initiatives to sustain the use of the Miao
language have been undermined by difficulties such as a lack of school-based textbook
development, teacher shortage, and limited financial resources. More importantly, a
writing system and language planning are needed for the preservation and promotion
of the Miao language.
Discussion
This study has explored the language practices, language ideology, and language manage-
ment in Miao families with an ecological approach to language policy research (e.g.
Douglas Fir Group, 2016; Gallo & Hornberger, 2019; Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008). In
our study, language practice in the Miao families is profoundly mediated by a variety of
contextual processes constituting an exo-system surrounding the family domain, such
as national language policies, local language policies, and school language policies. It is
also closely associated with the children’s motivation to learn languages and the
parents’language choices.
As can be seen from the findings, the use of the Miao language is in decline across
different generations in the families we studied, and this decline seems to be quite alarm-
ing, creating great concerns that have motivated the government to make efforts to pre-
serve the Miao language. The findings also indicate some inconsistency between the
language ideology and language management efforts in the Miao families. While the
Miao language is presented as an important ethnic identity marker, some parents never-
theless seem to place more emphasis on the learning of Putonghua, and even gave up their
insistence on the use of the Miao language at home. These findings speak for the vulner-
ability of the family as a site for individuals to promote and sustain the use of particular
languages, since family language policy decisions and implementation take place within a
space emerging from the interactions between individual families (at the micro level) and
contextual processes constituting exo-systems at the meso and macro levels. This necessi-
tates a more ecologically oriented approach to exploring and understanding family
language policy processes (e.g. Curdt-Christiansen, 2018; Gallo & Hornberger, 2019;
Han et al., 2019; Hornberger, 2002). It also draws attention to how different layers of
family language policy interrelate to and interact with each other in a specific context,
as captured by Figure 1.
14 Q. SHEN ET AL.
Figure 1 presents a complex eco-system that is made up of different layers with refer-
ence to the ‘onion’metaphor of language policy, including various factors and processes
at the micro (individual parents and family), meso and exo (schools and employment
institutions), and macro (national policy) levels. Characteristics of individual parents,
including their ideological orientation and income, were found to have mediated their
language management efforts, which in turn mediate the language practice within
families. However, their family language policy decisions and implementation seem to
have been profoundly influenced by other institutions at the meso level, such as
schools and employment institutions. For instance, the use of Putonghua as the
medium of instruction in their children’s schools has certainly caused some parents
not to insist on the use of the Miao language when interacting with their children at
home, thus limiting the use of the Miao language to interactions between the children
and their grandparents (e.g. Zhang & Tsung, 2019). In contrast, the inclusion of Miao
language skills as part of the selection criteria for low-level jobs in local government did
help them to realize that Miao language skills are valued, and encouraged them to main-
tain the use of the language within their family settings. Parents with low incomes were
also found to be more motivated to ensure that their children develop greater Puton-
ghua competence, as Putonghua was clearly seen by these parents as a way to access
financially rewarding employment opportunities.
These findings confirm that the parents’language practice and language management
are not determined by their language ideology alone (e.g. Curdt-Christiansen, 2018; Gallo
& Hornberger, 2019; Han et al., 2019). Language practice and language management in
other institutions at the meso level (such as schools) make up a complex exo-system of
interaction which profoundly mediates language practice and language management
within the family setting, interacting with individual parents’language ideologies and
undermining their operation in the family language policy process (e.g. Gallo & Hornber-
ger, 2019; Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008).
Figure 1. Family language policy in Miao families.
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 15
It must be noted that many institutions at the meso level are in fact instruments of the
nation-state, such as schools or government departments. Language practice and language
management in these institutions are in line with national language policies and broader
sociopolitical discourses about languages (e.g. Zhang & Tsung, 2019). Given the deep-
rooted tradition of instrumentalism in language policymaking in the Chinese context
(e.g. Gao, 2017; Tan & Rubdy, 2008), it is not surprising that languages other than
those that are directly promoted by the Chinese state are increasingly confined to the
family setting, since these languages are usually seen as carriers of cultural tradition
while the national language and other languages promoted by the state (in particular
English) are associated with modernization and socioeconomic development (Curdt-
Christiansen & Wang, 2018). Therefore, the preservation of minority languages like the
Miao language cannot depend on what individual parents and children do within their
own families; rather, it requires concerted efforts at different levels of language policy
making and implementation.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that families play an important role in maintaining minority languages
such as the Miao language. For this reason, it is important for us to explore how language
practice, language ideology, and language management interact with each other in the
family setting, as well as how such interactions help to sustain such languages. Although
peers and child agency might be contributive to children’s language socialization at the
micro level, attention has been given to the actions of key stakeholders within family set-
tings in the promotion and sustaining of the Miao language. The findings that emerged
from this inquiry remind us that the family is only one institution at the micro level,
although clearly an important one. There are other influential institutions at the meso
level (external to the family domain) whose language practices, language ideology, and
language management also profoundly influence the language practice and language man-
agement of individual parents and children.
Far more importantly, it is critical for readers to become aware of the role of the
nation-state in mediating language practices and language management in different
institutions at the meso level, whose interactions constitute an exo-system that both
constrains and facilitates what can be done within families (e.g. Xu, 2019; Zhang &
Tsung, 2019). The study did identify some things that could be done to promote the
use of the Miao language, such as the inclusion of the Miao language as a requirement
in recruiting frontline civil service servants, suggesting that the government could do
more than merely investing in initiatives such as yubao projects (e.g. Shen & Gao,
2019). If public space for the use of ethnic languages like the Miao language can be
created and sustained, it is more likely that these languages will be valued by
members of the relevant ethnic groups, and therefore be more likely to survive. There
is a need for policy makers to recognize that all languages are resources, in line with
the instrumental approach to language policy making in China. This would help
China to avoid ‘plural monoculturalism,’in which ‘ethnic minority groups emphasize
their cultural identities above those of the nation and limit their potential to take on
multiple roles in national development’(Postiglione, 2014, p. 43). Instead, China will
16 Q. SHEN ET AL.
achieve ‘harmonious multiculturalism,’aiming for a harmonious society in line with ‘the
Confucian tradition of “harmonious yet different”’ (ibid.).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Qi Shen is a full professor and director of Center for Language Planning and Global Governance,
Tongji University, Shanghai, China. His research interests include language policy and planning,
educational linguistics, and sociolinguistics.
Lian Wang is an associate professor in the School of Foreign Languages, Guizhou University of
Finance and Economics, Guizhou, China. Dr Wang’s research interests include educational linguis-
tics, language teacher development, and language education policy.
Xuesong (Andy) Gao is an associate professor in the School of Education, the University of New
South Wales, Australia. His research interests include language learner autonomy, language edu-
cation policy, and language teacher education.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research
for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
Chen, ZJ陈泽婧.(2013). 少数民族地区苗族幼儿本民族语言使用现状调查[Linguistic Survey
on the Miao Children in Ethnical Region]. 贵州民族大学学报[Journal of Guizhou Minzu
University], 1, 205–208.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. (2009). Invisible and visible language planning: Ideological factors in the
family language policy of Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. Language Policy,8(4), 351–
375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-009-9146-7
Curdt-Christiansen, X. (2013). Family language policy: Realities and continuities. Language Policy,
12(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-012-9269-0
Curdt-Christiansen, X. (2018). Family language policy. In J. W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-Milans (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 444–463). Oxford University Press.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2016). Conflicting language ideologies and contradictory language prac-
tices in Singaporean bilingual families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
37(7), 694–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1127926
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., & Huang, J. (2020). Factors influencing family language policy. In A.
Shalley & S. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook of social and affective factors in home language main-
tenance and development (pp. 174–193). Mouton de Gruyter.
Curdt-Christiansen, X., & Wang, W. H. (2018). Parents as agents of multilingual education: Family
language planning in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum,31(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07908318.2018.1504394
Danjo, C. (2018). Making sense of family language policy: Japanese-English bilingual children’s
creative and strategic translingual practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism.https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1460302
De Costa, P., Park, J., & Wee, L. (2016). Language learning as linguistic entrepreneurship:
Implications for language education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,25(5–6), 695–702.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0302-5
De Houwer, A. (1999). Environmental factors in early bilingual development: The role of parental
beliefs and attitudes. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Bilingualism and migration (pp. 75–95).
Mouton de Gruyter.
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 17
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The
Modern Language Journal,100(S1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301
Fishman, J. A. (2004). Language maintenance, language shift, and reversing. In T. K. Bhatia & W.
Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 406–436). Blackwell.
Gallo, S., & Hornberger, N. H. (2019). Immigration policy as family language policy: Mexican
immigrant children and families in search of biliteracy. International Journal of Bilingualism,
23(3), 757–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916684908
Gao, X. S. (2017). Linguistic instrumentalism and national language policy in Mainland China’s
state print media coverage of the protecting cantonese movement. Chinese Journal of
Communication,10(2), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2016.1207694
Han, Y., De Costa, P. I., & Cui, Y. (2019). Exploring the language policy and planning/second
language acquisition interface: Ecological insights from a Uyghur youth in China. Language
Policy,18(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-018-9463-9
Hornberger, N. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological
approach. Language Policy,1(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014548611951
Hu, XD胡晓东.(2011). 从语言使用态度看黔东苗语的母语生态[Linguistic ecology of the Miao
language in Eastern Guizhou from the perspective of language use]. 原生态民族文化学刊
[Journal of Original Ecological National Culture], 3(4), 82–87.
Kang, H. (2015). Korean families in America: Their family language policies and home language
maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal,38(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.
2015.1092002
King, K. A., & Fogle, L. W. (2006). Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents’perspective on
family language policy for additive bilingualism. The International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism,2(2), 94–113. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb362.0
Li, D. C. S. (2006). Chinese as a lingua franca in Greater China. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics,26, 149–176. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190506000080
Li, Y., Li, D., & Gao, X. (2019). The complexity of family language policy decisions: The case of
Cantonese and other regional Chinese varieties. Círculo De Lingüística Aplicada a La
Comunicación,79,63–78. https://doi.org/10.5209/clac.65648
Liddicoat, A. J., & Baldauf, R. B. (2008). Language planning in local contexts. Multilingual Matters.
McCarty, T. L. (2014). Introducing ethnography and language policy. In T. L. McCarty (Ed.),
Ethnography and language policy (pp. 1–28). Routledge.
Ó hlfearnáin, T. (2013). Family language policy, first language Irish speaker attitudes and commu-
nity-based response to language shift. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,34
(4), 348–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.794809
Ó hlfearnáin, T. (2015). Sociolinguistic vitality of Manx after extreme language shift: Authenticity
without traditional native speakers. International Journal of the Sociology of Language,2015
(231), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2014-0031
Pérez-Milans, M. (2013). Urban schools and English language education in late modern China: A
critical sociolinguistic ethnography. Routledge.
Postiglione, G. (2014). Education and cultural diversity in multiethnic China. In J. Leibold & Y.
Chen (Eds.), Minority education in China: Balancing unity and diversity in an era of critical plur-
alism (pp. 27–43). Hong Kong University Press.
Preece, S. (2019). Elite bilingual identities in higher education in the Anglophone world: The stra-
tification of linguistic diversity and reproduction of socio-economic inequalities in the multilin-
gual student population. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,40(5), 404–420.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1543692
Schiffman, H. (2006). Language policy and linguistic culture. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to
language policy: Theory and method (pp. 111–126). Blackwell Publishing.
Shen, Q., & Gao, X. S. (2019). Multilingualism and policy making in Greater China: Ideological and
implementational spaces. Language Policy,18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-018-9473-7
Shi, W. G., Yang, Z. B., Shi, W. H., & Long, X. W. (2017). 龙山苗语的濒危现状[Endangering
Situation of the Miao Language at Longshan]. 吉首大学学报[Journal of Jishou University],
38(S1), 83–86.
18 Q. SHEN ET AL.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. (2012). Family language policy: The critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development,33(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2011.638072
Tan, P., & Rubdy, R. (2008). Introduction. In R. Rubdy & P. Tan (Eds.), Language as commodity:
Global structures, local marketplaces (pp. 1–15). Continuum.
Tollefson, J. W., & Pérez-Milans, M. (2018). Research and practice in language policy and planning.
In J. W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and plan-
ning (pp. 1–32). Oxford University Press.
Wee, L. (2003). Linguistic instrumentalism in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development,24(3), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630308666499
Wee, L. (2008). Linguistic instrumentalism in Singapore. In P. K. W. Tan & R. Rubdy (Eds.),
Language as commodity (pp. 31–44). Continuum.
Xu, H. (2019). Putonghua as “admission ticket”to linguistic market in minority regions in China.
Language Policy,18(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-018-9462-x
Zhang, L., & Tsung, T. H. L. (2019). Tibetan bilingual education in Qinghai: Government policy vs.
Family language practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,22(3),
290–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1503226
Zhao, R., Zhou, M., & Gao, X. (2019). Concluding commentary: The discursive space for bilingual
education programs in China. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,22
(3), 365–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1550050
Zhu, H., & Li, W. (2016). Transnational experience, aspiration and family language policy. Journal
of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,37(7), 655–666. doi:10.1080/01434632.2015.
1127928
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 19
