Language practices in different domains in the family context

The language practices that a certain family might adopt can, as mentioned before, find their reasoning in the language ideologies that a family might hold and the way that this family might identify towards the languages in question.

Pietikäinen (2017b) discusses the language practices of ELF couples and how they use English as their relationships’ language, which is in most of the cases inter-twined with some words or expressions in one or both of the couple’s L1s, assuming that none of the couple speaks English as their L1. The couples perceive the use of English, mixed with other languages from their shared couple repertoire, as a natur-al occurring conversation. One of the couples that were interviewed by Pietikäinen (2017b) reported that their couple’s language practice seemed to stop working so ef-ficiently when third persons were added to their conversations such as extended

family members or friends with whom they communicate in English. On some occa-sions, this seemed to hinder understanding because the way of using English be-tween the couple developed to a mutual understanding due to a shared linguistic repertoire, also referred to as “couple tongue”, or as per Van Mensel's (2018) defini-tion of famililylect, that third persons would not share (Pietikäinen, 2017b).

The different language practices that families may adopt vary strongly depend-ing on socio-cultural, politic, economic or even ideological aspects. In the followdepend-ing paragraphs I exemplify this with three different studies that address language prac-tices in multilingual families living in three diverse locations: Singapore (Karpavaet al., 2019), Norway (Obojska, 2019) and Belgium (Van Mensel, 2018).

Although the participants of these three studies were all multilingual families with at least one family member that had migrated at some point from a different country to the country in question, each of these studies used a rather different ap-proach to collect their data. Karpava et al. (2019) worked with observational data and conversations conducted directly with the family members, Obojska (2019) con-ducted semi-structured interviews, and Van Mensel (2018) analysed recordings of naturally occurring family interactions by letting the families record themselves over a period of 1-2 years together with semi-structured interviews. I found it surprising that these studies, which at first seemed to me to have significant commonalities, ended up using such a multiplicity of different approaches to collect their data. Ho-wever, all these different approaches seemed to have been able to deliver valuable and valid findings to the topic of family language practices.

In all of these studies at least two or three languages are reported to be present on a daily basis in the family’s interactions. It is interesting to see how the different settings allow for different languages to emerge in a somewhat harmonious way. In the case of the family of the study in Norway (Obojska, 2019), in which both parents’

HL is Polish, the parents mentioned their intention of introducing both Norwegian and English to their family interactions in order to improve their fluency in those languages. However, this proposal was strongly opposed by both children, who re-ported that their parents had tried to introduce this language practice before, and they actively boycotted it. They wanted to keep Polish as their family’s language of interaction. This was also the case in one of the families living in Belgium (Van Men-sel, 2018), where the parents decided not to incorporate the local language as their family’s language of interaction, but rather use the minority language, in this case Chinese, for family interactions. The case of the Polish family in Norway (Objska, 2019) is a clear example of how the children’s agency can strongly influence in the negotiation of the family language practices.

In the study of different multilingual families in Singapore (Karpava et al., 2019), the families in question had in their shared linguistic repertoire Chinese,

Ma-lay or an Indian language together with English. Karpava et al. (2019) observed that the children of these three families used a different language when interacting with their siblings, a different language when interacting with their parents and, in some cases, even different languages when interacting with extended family members.

This did not happen in the two multilingual families studied in Belgium (Van Men-sel, 2018), in which the different language practices seemed to follow, at least to some extent, the OPOL approach. In one of these Belgian multilingual families (Van Men-sel, 2018) the children were speaking Dutch with their mother and to each other, and the father’s HL with their father (Spanish). In the second of these Belgian multilin-gual families (Van Mensel, 2018), both parents reported that they were actively plan-ning to use a variant of the OPOL approach, in which both of them would speak res-pectively their most dominant language to the kids: the mother would talk Dutch and the father Chinese. However, in situations in which the whole family would be present, the communication language would be Chinese (the mother is bilingual).

Seemingly, the language practices are truly variant in each of the mentioned families.

With these examples (Obojska, 2019; Van Mensel, 2018; Karpava er al., 2019) it is pos-sible to see how external societal, as well as internal family relations, strongly in-fluence the family language practices that a multilingual family may end up adop-ting.

All in all, these different studies portray how different languages can, in a so-mewhat harmonious way, be intertwined in the setting of multilingual families and how language is negotiated between different family members. For the study of the multilingual families in Karpava et al. (2019) the most challenging part of having such a variety of languages seemed to be the children’s proficiency in the minority languages that were present in certain family settings. Opposite to Karpavaet al., (2019), in Obojska (2019) the participants seemed to struggle to incorporate the local language to their family interaction as their children preferred to maintain the mino-rity language (Polish), as their language for family interactions. In the case of the multilingual families in Van Mensel (2018), there seemed to be a rather balanced use of the languages of the families’ language repertoire and no mention of struggling with neither the majority nor the minority language(s) was reported. However, the last family mentioned in Van Mensel (2018) also reported to have consciously chosen not to use any of the minority languages that the parents grew up exposed to, becau-se they felt that the practice of thebecau-se languages would not be ubecau-seful in the Belgian context. These studies support the idea that each family is influenced by their own circumstances and that the language choices and proficiencies in different languages might vary strongly. There was no special mention by these families about the notion of their family members creatively mixing different codes from the languages in their language repertoire. However, it can still likely be a recurrent phenomenon in their families.

Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that language is never set in stone, as well as languages appear they might disappear too. The language practices of the families mentioned above are recent studies, yet it is possible that their language practices have changed again, and that in future, they might also experience drastic changes.

In linguistics, this phenomenon is identified as transience (Lønsmann, Hazel & Ha-berland, 2017). This same phenomenon can be applied to family language repertoires and their language practices within the family setting. A family might be using a cer-tain set of languages because they feel that the languages in question are important to them at a certain moment of their lives. This might change over time, meaning that those languages that they were using before, may become less relevant, or even irrelevant, thus their language practices might see a drastic change. Transience (Lønsmann, Hazel & Haberland, 2017) can also be applied to the earlier mentioned study in Finland (Palviainen & Bergroth, 2018), in which parents had to fill in a form defining which languages the L1’s of their kids would be. It is fairly possible that the language(s) that the parents choose to report on these forms might end up not being relevant or even used by their kids anymore at a later stage of their lives.