ABSTRACT

As a young, rapidly growing field of inquiry, FLP centers on “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” (King, Fogle, & Logan-Terry, 2008, p.907). One theoretical framework that has informed much research in the field (e.g., King et al., 2008; Ren & Hu, 2013; Schwartz & Verschik, 2013) is Spolsky’s (2004, 2009) conceptualization of language policy as being constituted by three dynamically interrelated components. The first component-language ideologies-consists of deeply seated beliefs and assumptions about appropriate language choice and practices in a societal, educational, and/or familial context. As Spolsky (2009) points out, particular languages, their varieties, and/ or linguistic features have been accorded differing values and prestige, which in turn rationalizes or justifies a deliberate language choice or specific changes in language practice and management endeavors (Smith-Christmas, 2016). Such language ideologies are not only inf luenced by the cumulative history of language use in a family but also situated in and mediated by a wider social, cultural, educational, and economic context (Canagarajah, 2008). As the second integral component of Spolsky’s framework, language practices are what individuals in a community or, in the context of FLP, family members do with language-that is, observable and regular language behaviors that they may be consciously aware or unaware of. Spolsky (2009) notes that language practices are de facto language policies because they provide the linguistic input and models for language acquisition by the next generation. The last component of Spolsky’s language policy framework-language management-refers to what people try to do with language. Specifically, it comprises explicit and deliberate efforts made by community/family members to modify language practices and/ or language ideologies as well as policy mechanisms (e.g., language testing and medium of instruction) whose status as language policy devices often remains below public consciousness (Shohamy, 2006).