Home language policy of second-generation Turkish families in the Netherlands

Abstract

This study investigated the family language policy of second-generation Turkish immigrant families in the Netherlands by exploring their language ideologies, practices, and management strategies. Using an ethnographic approach, data were collected through a set of observations and interviews with 20 families. Transcriptions of interviews and memos of observations were coded to derive the major strategies employed by parents regarding home language use. The findings show that, although Turkish maintenance is a very important part of the linguistic ideologies of the families studied, there is great diversity and complexity in their language practices and management strategies. All of the families focus their language planning activities around the educational achievement of their children. Therefore, the recommendations of educational institutions are very important in their language practices. ARTICLE HISTORY

Family language policy, translingualism, and linguistic boundaries

“…For such families, a one person–one language policy may be followed to promote (or even protect) a cultural heritage. The investigation of Turkish families living in the Netherlands by Bezcioglu‐Goktolga and Yagmur (2018, p. 53) provides an illuminating example of this situation: nearly half of the 35 parents interviewed ‘expressed their efforts to speak only Turkish to their children before school age.’ The decision to adopt a Turkish‐only policy is partly driven by the fear that social pressures at school will encourage children to forget (or even feel ashamed of) their cultural heritage. Although families were able to use multiple language resources at home, the one family–one language policy allowed them to protect their ‘identities and values’ (Bezcioglu‐Goktolga & Yagmur, 2018, p. 54) for as long as possible.…”

“…The investigation of Turkish families living in the Netherlands by Bezcioglu‐Goktolga and Yagmur (2018, p. 53) provides an illuminating example of this situation: nearly half of the 35 parents interviewed ‘expressed their efforts to speak only Turkish to their children before school age.’ The decision to adopt a Turkish‐only policy is partly driven by the fear that social pressures at school will encourage children to forget (or even feel ashamed of) their cultural heritage. Although families were able to use multiple language resources at home, the one family–one language policy allowed them to protect their ‘identities and values’ (Bezcioglu‐Goktolga & Yagmur, 2018, p. 54) for as long as possible. In fact, the social pressures faced by children to conform to Dutch linguistic and cultural practices were so great that some parents reported that they reluctantly used Turkish later in life because of the psychological dimensions of being seen as a minority (Bezcioglu‐Goktolga & Yagmur, 2018, p. 55).…”

“…Although families were able to use multiple language resources at home, the one family–one language policy allowed them to protect their ‘identities and values’ (Bezcioglu‐Goktolga & Yagmur, 2018, p. 54) for as long as possible. In fact, the social pressures faced by children to conform to Dutch linguistic and cultural practices were so great that some parents reported that they reluctantly used Turkish later in life because of the psychological dimensions of being seen as a minority (Bezcioglu‐Goktolga & Yagmur, 2018, p. 55). In other words, for some families, it was necessary to adopt a one family–one language policy outside of home because translanguaging practices did not help family members ‘fit in.’…”

“…The study by Bezcioglu‐Goktolga and Yagmur (2018) demonstrates that family relationships can be enhanced by establishing strict linguistic boundaries that dictate who speaks in what language and to whom. Although family relationships can also be enhanced by engaging in translanguaging practices – see, for example, the English‐Bangla conversations between a grandmother and her granddaughter in Ruby's (2012) study – decisions to adopt static linguistic boundaries at home complicate discussions of trans‐ constructs that have hitherto taken place in scholarship.…”

“…That is, even in Hong Kong, opportunities to use Korean outside of home are limited. Much like the parents of Bezcioglu‐Goktolga and Yagmur's (2018) study, we wanted to maximize opportunities for our daughter to use and practice her Korean, knowing that as she grew older, as I experienced, her desires to use Korean would possibly diminish as her emotional involvement with her mostly English‐speaking friends grew stronger.…”