07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
Religious Language, Secular Language?: Tracing Intersections, Exclusions, and Uncertainties in Diverse Language Learning Contexts in Luxembourg
Anastasia Badder
University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Badder, Anastasia
It is widely accepted within anthropology, education, sociolinguistics and beyond, that language learning as a process happens across contexts, as students participate in multiple complex learning systems and make connections through and across these. Ignoring these connections has consequences for pedagogy, classroom experience, and learning outcomes. A wide range of powerful research examines language learning across home, school, and other contexts and highlights what is lost when teachers overlook students’ language and literacy learning experiences in different contexts (cf. Bronkhorst & Akkerman 2016).
However, there remains a dearth of research detailing the specific ways secular and religious language and literacy learning processes intersect. Some emerging research examines the learning of a single language (Avni 2014; Rosowsky 2016), while other work illustrates multiple language learning processes within highly observant communities wherein religion frames all language learning (cf. Fader 2009). Yet studies of language learning complexities, challenges, and exclusions experienced by religiously minoritized students attending both secular schools and religious afterschool programs (as the majority do in many traditions, cf. Pomson 2010) remain rare (Meyer 2016; Badder 2022 are some exceptions).
I suggest that uncertainty about the place of religion in our contemporary, conflict-laden moment, narrow understandings of secularism, and misunderstandings of the value, use, and meaning of religious language and literacy have led scholars to silo religious language to religious spaces and to view any appearance of religious language practices outside of those spaces as a problem, if not a direct threat, to secular education (cf. Dallavis 2011; Sarroub 2002). In the process, as Skerrett (2013) powerfully argues, myriad continuities and opportunities for effective and meaningful learning are being missed, to the detriment of students and scholarship. Indeed, in ‘secular’ spaces, religious understandings and viewpoints get articulated, very often in ways that do not align with or directly contradict their manifestations in the lives of religious communities (Badder 2024).
My research aims to investigate the intersections of literacy ideologies and language learning experiences encountered by religious students enrolled in secular schools in Europe across the contexts of their everyday lives. Specifically, I zoom in on a Jewish community in Luxembourg, where French and Biblical Hebrew language and literacy are brought into contact and conversation in complex ways that subvert expectations for religious and secular language use and boundaries.
This cohort presents an interesting case for three reasons. First, the Luxembourgish state has recently been working to secularize, including detaching itself from connections with religious communities and removing religion from the public realm. Second, French holds an awkward space in Luxembourg. Historically a language of prestige, it is tightly interwoven with ideologies of laicité and rationality and echoes of colonial memories. French is also the last official language taught in the state school curriculum and graduates from the Luxembourgish system often report feeling less competent in French. Additionally, existing research shows that teachers cite having French (or another Romance language) as a reason that students are unable to access the university education track (Horner & Weber 2008). Third, the Jewish community at the heart of this research has simultaneously experienced its own rapid internal changes. As members grapple with these changes and their implications, they are experiencing new forms of uncertainty about their community, its history and future. In response, French has emerged as a point around which they seek to cohere as a community.
This paper therefore explores how students in a Luxembourgish Jewish congregational school program make sense of the ways French and Hebrew overlap, zooming in on how such connections shape student understandings and experiences of Hebrew, themselves as Hebrew users, as Jews, and as students in secular schools.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe questions I am asking and the theoretical frames on which I draw in my research have certain implications for my methods and methodology. First, I am interested in processes; second, my questions involve the details, actions, and interactions of everyday life; and third, in order to address these issues, I need to have access to these interactions as they unfold and as people work to make sense of those unfoldings. To this end, my work is primarily ethnographic. Ethnography and its methods, including participant observation, enable me to get beyond universals and consider the specificity of people’s everyday experiences while calling attention to “the political stakes that make up the ordinary” (Biehl 2013: 574).
The inspiration for my current project emerged in 2017 during a separate course of research. In 2022, I returned to this project and began new focused fieldwork, which is ongoing. In that time, I have been attending organized events at or organized by the synagogue community with whom I am working, such as services, lectures, memorials, etc. Importantly, I have also been sitting in on the classes of this synagogue’s congregational school. I have also been able to spend time with people in more informal settings, such as dinners at home and social gatherings. In the coming months, I plan to continue this fieldwork, including conducting a series of interviews with families in the congregational school.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsBased on my fieldwork to date, I am working through several big questions. What does it mean that French, an apparently universalistic and ‘secular’ language with its own cultural imperatives and imperial histories is being taken up by and tracked onto this Jewish community in Luxembourg? What does it mean that not only is French being taken up, but also framed in very similar ways to religious Hebrew? What does it mean that the ways in which French is valued and the roles and import associated with it very clearly diverge from the ways it is valued and its import in secular spaces, especially schools? And relatedly, what does it mean that there is a clear language policy operating in the congregational school classroom that creates hierarchies that are the inverse of those outside that classroom?
By way of conclusion, I can tentatively offer the following: the students in this congregational school are keenly aware of the de facto language policies, hierarchies, and exclusions in their congregational and secular state schools and in many ways reinforce those through their discursive actions. At the same time, however, they also find ways to undermine those policies and hierarchies through playful language use, translanguaging, making new linguistic connections, and reflecting thoughtfully about whether and how French and Hebrew are related. Though the future remains uncertain for many of these students – indeed, some have already left Luxembourg for reasons attributed to issues of language and identity – they nonetheless continue to carve out novel and creative means through which to think through and value their linguistic capacities and identities.
ReferencesAvni, Sharon. 2014. Hebrew education in the United States: historical perspectives and future
directions. Journal of Jewish Education 80 (3): 256-286.
Badder, Anastasia. 2024. When a yarmulke stands for all Jews: Navigating shifting signs from synagogue to school in Luxembourg. Contemporary Jewry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-023-09524-8
Badder, Anastasia. 2022. ‘I just want you to get into the flow of reading’: Reframing Hebrew
proficiency as an enactment of liberal Jewishness. Language & Communication 87: 221-230.
Biehl, João. 2013. Ethnography in the way of theory. Cultural Anthropology 28 (4): 573-597.
Bronkhorst, Larike H & Sanne F. Akkerman. 2015. At the boundary of school: Continuity and
discontinuity in learning across contexts. Educational Research Review 19: 18-35.
Dallavis, Christian. 2011. “Because that’s who I am”: Extending theories of culturally responsive pedagogy to consider religious identity, belief, and practice. Multicultural Perspectives 13 ( 3): 138-144 .
Fader, Ayala. 2009. Mitzvah Girls: Bringing up the Next Generation of Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Horner, Kristine & Jean-Jacques Weber. 2008. The language situation in Luxembourg. Current Issues in Language Planning 9 (1): 69-128.
Myers, Jo-Ann. 2016. Hebrew, the Living Breath of Jewish Existence: The Teaching and Learning
of Biblical and Modern Hebrew. DProf Thesis, Middlesex University.
Pomson, Alex. 2010. Context, Context, Context—The Special Challenges and Opportunities in
Congregational Education for Practitioners and Researchers. Journal of Jewish Education 76 (4):
285-288.
Rosowsky, Andrey. 2016. Heavenly Entextualisations: the acquisition and performance of classical religious texts. In Navigating Languages, Literacies and Identities: Religion in Young Lives, edited by V. Lytra, D. Volk, E. Gregory, 110-125. New York: Routledge.
Sarroub, Loukia K. 2002. In-betweenness: Religion and conflicting visions of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 37: 130-148.
Skerrett, Allison. 2013. Religious Llteracies in a secular literacy classroom. Reading Research Quarterly 49 (2): 233-250.
07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
Educator Perspectives on Openness and Interconnectedness: Orientations for Creating a Positive Climate for Diversity with Multilingual Students and Beyond
Kara Viesca1, Jenni Alisaari2, Svenja Hammer3, Svenja Lemmrich4, Annela Teemant5
1University of Nebraska, United States of America; 2University of Turku, Finland; 3Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway; 4Leuphana University, Germany; 5Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, USA
Presenting Author: Viesca, Kara
Building off of the work of Viesca et al. (2019), that important teacher knowledge and skills for working with multilingual learners fall into three major categories—context, orientations, and pedagogy—a multinational team of researchers has embarked on further exploring the orientations necessary for quality teaching and learning to occur with multilingual students. In Viesca et al. (forthcoming), this team operationalized five orientations, drawing from the empirical and theoretical research suggesting the orientations necessary for positive school and classroom climates for diversity. Since diversity in every possible aspect (e.g., language, race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.) is a major feature of multilingual populations, embracing diversity and elevating it to create community and a sense of belonging is critical for the work of teaching multilingual students.
In 2022, the team conducted an exploratory qualitative study, holding interviews and focus groups with teachers in Finland, Norway, Germany, England, and the US to discuss orientations and how they can create a positive climate for diversity. We also asked for specific feedback on the orientations we had identified and defined (Viesca et al., forthcoming). We sought insights from myriad practitioners working in varied contexts (e.g., grade level, content area, country, etc.) to understand the perspectives different practitioners held to these orientations. In this study, we examine the interview data (n = 22) to reveal the perspectives and ideas shared by our research participants regarding the orientations of interconnectedness and openness.
We conceptualize interconnectedness as humanizing teaching and learning that produces belonging (Viesca et al., forthcoming). We view humanizing connections from one person to another, connecting the individual to the collective, as essential for co-constructing a positive diversity climate and creating great learning opportunities for multilingual learners. For this to be possible, relationships and practices must be purposeful for the community’s inherent diversity to be positively productive and thus capable of generating widespread, authentic belonging. To accomplish this, teaching/learning spaces must be deliberately developed to ensure individual self-actualization occurs in reciprocity and with accountability (Hayes & Kaba, 2023; Simpson, 2017). This way, personal self-actualization (grounded in self-determination and agency) ensures collective self-actualization through reciprocity and shared accountability. With interconnectedness, all forms of diversity can come into a relationship in positive and productive ways while co-creating authentic love and belonging at the individual and collective levels.
We operationalize openness as teaching and learning that embraces multiple knowledges with grace. To counter issues of power that are deeply entrenched in our society and communities, we propose a commitment to epistemic humility, or openness, which is necessary to co-construct a positive diversity climate. Such openness is grounded in an ongoing acknowledgment and investment in what one can and cannot know. This kind of openness also recognizes that there are multiple ways of knowing, and thus, no universal epistemology or ontology should be privileged over all others. Such humility counters various issues of supremacy that impact teaching and learning practices, policies, and spaces. It is also the openness necessary to adopt new ways of thinking upon receiving additional information. Educators practice openness in teaching/learning through critical self-reflection and an ongoing commitment to rethink and disrupt various messages, biases, and social norms we accept without question. Finally, the kind of openness necessary to co-construct a positive diversity climate is the openness that embraces and operates around a clear understanding of humans as flawed (Hayes & Kaba, 2023). This openness in application accepts and expects all human beings to exist and operate in imperfection, thus offering grace, acceptance, and understanding to both others and self in the face of conflicts, mistakes, and problems, as well as successes and celebrations.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn this study, we ask:
• How do practitioners discuss and contextualize the orientations of interconnectedness and openness in their practices?
• What opportunities and challenges do participants identify to putting the orientations of interconnectedness and openness into practice?
We collected qualitative data from five nations (Finland, Norway, Germany, England, and the US) with practicing teachers (n = 22): 3 Finnish, 4 Norwegian, 7 German, 6 English, and 2 American educators. In this study we conducted problem-centered interviews (Witzel & Reiter, 2012) that have been employed to facilitate discursive-dialogic knowledge production between the interviewer and interviewees. The lead author was present at each of the data collection events as was 1-2 additional research team members. We recorded the interviews for later transcription and collected background information using a short questionnaire. The transcriptions were created focused on the words spoken in the interviews and focus group exchanges. Each conversation was held in English except the focus group in Germany, which was held in German. The interviews took in general around 60-90 minutes. We analyzed the data using the Gioia method (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013). This approach combines open (first order) coding with theory-centric (second order) coding, based on grounded theory principles. We engaged in these analysis processes collaboratively with the lead author engaged in all conversations and data analysis efforts in collaboration with both team members present for data collection and at least 1-2 members who were not present. Therefore, the coding decisions and data analysis efforts were deeply collaborative and dialogic including all members of the research team as well as a consistent perspective offered by the lead author.
As an exploratory study, participants were largely found through snowball sampling and local relationships. We sought to recruit teachers to the study who could represent a variety of perspectives and life experiences. The teachers we talked to range from being relatively new to teaching (in their first few years) to highly experienced (in their last few years before retirement). We also talked with teachers from racially minoritized backgrounds in their local contexts, teachers who had moved to teach in their local context from another country, teachers who were monolingual in the local language, and those who were multilingual for various reasons.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary results suggest a relationship between the two orientations of openness and interconnectedness. In our coding, instances of interconnectedness rarely occur without instances of openness and vice versa. Additionally, participants discuss these orientations as essential for creating classroom and school climates where diversity is positive and productive for all students, especially multilingual students.
However, participants also noted myriad barriers to the widespread implementation of the orientations of interconnectedness and openness. Specifically, issues in the larger sociopolitical context were invoked, like the impacts of social media, different policies impacting schools, teachers, and students, as well as the inability of school systems and structures to nimbly adjust to the rapidly changing student populations and world (like the changes experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic). These contextual aspects are particularly interesting since the study was conducted across multiple European countries and the US, thus offering important perspectives across varying national contexts. Participants also discussed challenges within schools like parental involvement and administrative support.
Finally, participants noted the tensions and paradoxes they experience seeking to orient their work around interconnectedness and openness, particularly concerning the extensive standardization of educational outcomes in the context of widespread diversity, inequitable supports, and narratives about 21st-century learning and differentiated instructional approaches. Participants articulated an ongoing tension of not being able to do the work of orienting themselves and their students towards interconnectedness and openness due to restraints created outside and inside of school, leading to frustration and considerations of leaving the profession. A small subgroup of teachers had experience working in spaces where they could orient their practice towards interconnectedness and openness and reported the value of working in such spaces for themselves and for students and their families. In such spaces, participants overwhelmingly noted the use of democratic practices for decision-making at both the classroom and school levels.
ReferencesGioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology.
Hayes, K. & Kaba, M. (2023). Let this radicalize you: Organizing and the revolution of
reciprocal care. Haymarket Books.
Simpson, L. B. (2017). As we have always done: Indigenous freedom through radical resistance.
University of Minnesota Press.
Viesca, K. M., Alisaari, J., Flynn, N., Hammer, S., Lemmrich, S., Routarinne, S., & Teemant, A.
(In Press). Orientations for co-constructing a positive climate for diversity in
teaching and learning. In Teacher Education in (Post-) Pandemic Times: International Perspectives on Intercultural Learning, Diversity and Equity. Peter Lang.
Viesca, K.M., Strom, K., Hammer, S., Masterson, J., Linzell C.H., Mitchell-McCollough, J., &
Flynn, N. (2019). Developing a complex portrait of content teaching for multilingual learners via nonlinear theoretical understandings. Review of Research in Education, 43, 304-335. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18820910
Witzel, A., & Reiter, H. (2012). The Problem-Centered Interview. SAGE Publications.
07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
Maintaining the Ukrainian Language amidst Conflict: Evidence from Greek-Ukrainian Families
Christina Maligkoudi1, Aspasia Chatzidaki2
1Democritus University of Thrace, Greece; 2University of Crete, Greece
Presenting Author: Chatzidaki, Aspasia
In the past ten years, there has been a noticeable rise in studies investigating family language policies in immigrant groups and transnational, mixed-marriage families in Greece (e.g. Chatzidaki & Maligkoudi, 2013; Gogonas & Maligkoudi, 2020; Maligkoudi, 2019). This paper reports on a small-scale study focusing on family language policies in Greek-Ukrainian families living in the city of Thessaloniki, in Northern Greece.
The participants in our study are six Ukrainian mothers married to Greek citizens who have been living in Greece for five to 14 years; among them they have eight children between the ages of 5 to 14 which were born in Greece (with one exception). All mothers are highly-educated, multilingual individuals most of whom have occupations which exploit their ethnic and linguistic background. They have raised their children in two or three languages (Greek, Ukrainian and/or Russian), and are strong supporters of the maintenance and transmission of the Ukrainian language. They have also been actively involved in supporting the Ukrainian cause since the beginning of the war with Russia.
Our study is framed within a Family Language Policy (henceforth FLP) framework drawing from earlier (e.g. Curdt-Christiansen, 2009; King, Fogle & Logan-Terry, 2008; Spolsky, 2004; 2012) and more recent conceptualizations of the field which focus on meaning-making, experiences, agency, and identity constructions in transnational families (e.g. Curdt-Christiansen, 2018; Curdt-Christiansen & Lanza 2018; Fogle & King, 2013; King & Lanza, 2019; Smith-Christmas, 2019).
In particular, the aim of the study was to investigate the families’ language policies as revealed through an examination of the parents’ language practices and language ideologies and measures falling under the language management aspect of FLP (Spolsky, 2004; 2012). Following Curdt-Christiansen (2009; 2020), we deemed it important to take into consideration not only the language ideologies and patterns of communication among family members, but also factors such as the mothers’ educational background, personal language learning experiences, migrant profile, and the financial resources of the family.
Moreover, we wished to investigate how broader sociolinguistic issues impact these mothers’ choices, and, in particular, the stance our informants take with regard to the hotly debated issue of abandoning Russian as an everyday language in Ukraine. After Ukraine became an independent nation in 1991, a process of Ukrainisation was established, which entailed measures in favour of the Ukrainian language as a means to construct a new national identity (Seals & Beliaeva, 2023). However, a large segment of the population continued to use Russian instead of Ukrainian irrespective of their allegiance; apparently, for many Russian-speaking Ukrainians the Ukrainian language is not necessarily a token of nationhood and is not intricately linked to the Ukrainian identity (Bilaniuk, 2016; Kulyk 2016; 2018). However, in the aftermath of the political developments of the past ten years (the Euromaidan and the Revolution of Dignity in late 2013–2014, the annexation of Crimea by the Russians, the strife at the eastern border, and finally, the Russian invasion in 2022) there seems to be a rise in the number of people who call for the abandonment of the Russian language and the adoption of Ukrainian instead (Harrison, 2021; Seals & Beliaeva, 2023), a phenomenon some authors refer to as ‘linguistic conversion’ (Bilaniuk, 2020). In this context, we wished to examine how the six participants negotiate the ongoing changes in language ideologies and attitudes in Ukraine and the impact this may have had on their language policies with regard to the two languages.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe population we intended to study included mothers of Ukrainian origin who at the time of the study had been living in Greece for at least five years. The first author gained access to the community through her acquaintance with a mother to whom she had previously taught Greek. Using a ‘snowball’ approach, five more mothers were approached and agreed to take part in the study, after assurances of anonymity were given (pseudonyms are used and information about their studies or occupation is presented in as general terms as possible). The six participants were among a group of parents who, in the past few years, organized weekly meetings in order for their children to socialize with other Ukrainian speakers and be immersed in the Ukrainian language and culture through art and play. Since September 2022, this informal ‘club’ was transformed into a small community school for Greek-Ukrainian children operating at the weekend. The school is supported by an NGO (which offers their premises for the courses) while the staff offers their services on a voluntary basis. Children have the opportunity to take Ukrainian language courses and to experience the Ukrainian culture through playful and creative activities. The first author, who is also a member of an association promoting bilingualism among transnational families was invited to visit the school in this capacity and observe its functioning. This also facilitated the participants’ recruitment, as it fostered a certain degree of familiarity with and involvement in their community,
Data collection was based on semi-structured interviews which took place in spring 2023 at the community school’s premises. The interview protocol comprised questions which dealt, first, with the mother’s educational background and current occupation and the family’s length of residence in Greece. Another set of questions referred to patterns of multilingualism in the family: who can speak which languages, which languages are used by whom to whom. There was a question regarding the child’s experiences at the Ukrainian school, and finally, a question which referred to probable changes in the mother’s linguistic behaviour in the aftermath of the recent political strife in Ukraine. The data is being analysed following ‘thematic analysis’ (Braun & Clarke, 2017).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSome preliminary findings include the following:
With regard to practices aimed at supporting Ukrainian language development in their children, we found that, in most families, the parents followed a strict OPOL policy and provided plenty of meaningful input in Ukrainian, via exposure to print and media, and ensuring frequent contact with Ukrainian speakers. Two cases stand out, though, and prove the complexity of the situation; in one family the Greek father uses Russian with the children instead of Greek, while in another, the child was born in an Asian country and grew up speaking English, Russian and Greek, until the age of seven when the mother decided to switch to Ukrainian and stopped using Russian with her daughter.
With regard to language ideologies, all mothers agree on the importance of their children speaking Ukrainian as an integral part of their identity and heritage. They also seem to agree on viewing the mastery of many languages as an asset, drawing on their own educational and professional experiences. However, the most interesting findings are those which emerge with regard to the linguistic conversion. The six participants seem to represent various positions on a continuum which range between the uninhibited, continued use of Russian at home to taking distance from using this language. Some of the mothers link this stance to feelings of patriotism, even expressing feelings of guilt or shame for previously using the Russian language, while others seem to downplay the importance of rejecting the language, despite their feelings of loyalty to the Ukrainian nation.
ReferencesBilaniuk, L. (2020). Linguistic conversions: Nation-building on the self. Journal of Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society, 6 (1), 59-82.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298.
Chatzidaki, A., & Maligkoudi, C. (2013). Family language policies among Albanian immigrants in Greece. Ιnternational Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(6), 675-689. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.709817 (first published online 2012)
Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. (2009). Invisible and visible language planning: ideological factors in the family language policy of Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. Language Policy, 8, 351–375.
Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. (2018). Family language policy. In J. Tollefson & M. Perez-Millans (Eds.), The Ox-ford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 420-441). Oxford University Press.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. & Lanza, E. (2018). Language management in multilingual families: Efforts, measures and challenges. Multilingua, 37 (2), 123-130.
Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. (2020). Educating migrant children in England: language and educational practices in home and school environments. International Multilingual Research Journal, 14 (2), 163-180.
Fogle, L.W., & King, K. A. (2013). Child Agency and Language Policy in Transnational Families. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 19, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.5070/L4190005288
Gogonas, N. & Maligkoudi, C. (2020): ‘Mothers have the power!’: Czech mothers’ language ideologies and management practices in the context of a Czech complementary school in Greece, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2020.1799324
Harrison K. (2021). ‘In Ukrainian, Please!’: Language Ideologies in a Ukrainian Complementary School. Languages, 6(4), 179.
King, K., Fogle, L. & Logan-Terry, A. (2008). Family Language Policy. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 907-922.
King, K., & Lanza, E. (2019). Ideology, agency, and imagination in multilingual families: An introduction. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(3), 717-723.
Kulyk, V. (2018). Shedding Russianness, Recasting Ukrainianness: The Post-Euromaidan Dynamics of Ethnonational Identifications in Ukraine. Post-Soviet Affairs, 34, 119–38.
Μaligkoudi, C. (2019). Issues of Language Socialization and Language Acquisition Among Italians in Greece. Εducation Sciences, 2019(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.26248/.v2019i2.596 [in Greek]
Seals, C. & Beliaeva, N. (2023). Aspirational family language policy. Language Policy 22, 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-023-09674-3
Smith-Christmas, C. (2019). When X doesn’t mark the spot: the intersection of language shift, identity and family language policy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 255, 133-158.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. (2012). What Is Language Policy? In B. Spolsky (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy (pp. 3-15). Cambridge University Press.
|
