‘I don’t want them to be monolingual like Americans’: family language policies of Turkish parents in the United States

ABSTRACT

This phenomenological qualitative study explores the experiences of Turkish immigrant parents in the United States as they endeavor to maintain Turkish as a heritage language for their children. The study utilises the family language policy framework to investigate the array of language policies implemented by these parents. The findings uncover the varied approaches adopted by the parents to sustain Turkish as a heritage language. However, they also highlight significant challenges, including English-only policies in educational settings and a lack of sociocultural support for heritage language development. These results provide insights into the intricate dynamics of language maintenance within immigrant families and emphasise the need for targeted interventions and community support to promote the ongoing use and development of heritage languages in the context of immigration.

KEYWORDS:

• Turkish immigrant parents
• heritage language maintenance
• family language policy
• sociocultural support
• language maintenance challenges
• phenomenology

Introduction

Families assume a pivotal role in the maintenance of their heritage language (HL) (Fishman 2001; Polinsky and Kagan 2007; Schwartz 2010; Spolsky 2004), serving as the primary social unit providing linguistic input (Ochs and Schieffelin 1984) where explicit and implicit (King, Fogle, and Logan-Terry 2008) planning strategies are executed for HL maintenance. These strategies, collectively referred to as family language policies (FLP), form an essential framework for exploring familial language ideologies, practices, and maintenance efforts regarding HLs (King and Fogle 2013). In the United States, Turkish is acknowledged as a HL, with a growing community through successive waves of immigration (Kaya 2004). While the exact number of Turkish immigrants remains uncertain, estimations from the US Census Bureau (2021) suggest a population of 230,000. Despite this notable size, research on the maintenance of Turkish as an HL remains significantly limited, marked by a paucity of studies to date, and a lack of comprehensive exploration from the FLP perspective. To address this gap, this study examines Turkish parents’ FLP in the US, with the following research questions in mind:

1. What are the prevailing language ideologies held by Turkish parents residing in the US concerning the maintenance of Turkish as an HL for their children?

2. What language practices and management efforts do Turkish immigrant parents in the US employ to promote Turkish as an HL within their families?

3. What challenges, if any, do Turkish immigrant parents in the US face in implementing their FLP for the maintenance of Turkish as an HL?

Literature review

Heritage languages and heritage language speakers within the US context

In the US, an HL refers to any language spoken in communities other than English (Valdés 2001). Individuals speaking or learning such a language are recognised as HL speakers. Fishman (2001), classifies HLs into three groups: indigenous, colonial, and immigrant. Indigenous HLs are those spoken by Native American people who had inhabited the country before the European colonisation. They encompass languages such as Navajo, Cherokee, and Choctaw, which are spoken today despite a significant decline in the number of their speakers. Colonial HLs are ‘non-indigenous languages that were already established [in the US] before [it] came into being’ (83). They are the languages spoken by individuals who migrated to North America with the intention of colonisation. This category includes but is not limited to English, German, Dutch, Finnish, French, Spanish, and Swedish. Immigrant HLs are spoken by immigrants who have arrived in the US after its independence (Kelleher 2010). Turkish serves as an example of an immigrant HL.

Family language policy

To understand the concept of FLP, we need to clarify the broader framework of language policy (LP). LP refers to a sociolinguistic framework involving the guidelines, principles, and decisions to manage languages in specific contexts. It encompasses various aspects such as language planning, education, rights, maintenance, and revitalisation and comprises three interdependent concepts: language practices, language ideologies, and language management (Spolsky 2004; 2009). Language practices refer to individual actions related to actual language use, such as the deliberate preference for certain linguistic features or language varieties. Language ideologies are the values assigned to named languages, varieties, and features Language management entails the practical aspects of implementing and enforcing language policies and also has the potential to impact the language ideologies.

FLP is a field that examines ‘language use within the home among family members’ (King, Fogle, and Logan-Terry 2008, 907). This concept is intertwined with language ideologies, practices, as well as conscious language management strategies, all taking place within the familial context (King and Fogle 2017). These interconnected components do not exist in isolation; they form a dynamic loop within the family’s language system, where each factor influences and is influenced by the others (Schwartz, Moin, and Klayle 2013).

FLP studies play a significant role in the domains of child bilingualism and HL acquisition, with a focus on bilingual transnational families (King, Fogle, and Logan-Terry 2008; Lanza and Lomeu Gomes 2020; Wilson 2020). These families, with their diverse linguistic backgrounds and global connections, possess the potential to impact the transmission of languages across generations (Baker and Wright 2021; Fishman 2001; Schwartz 2010). By examining FLP, researchers contribute insights into how language dynamics are managed, negotiated, and passed down within these families.

Parental language ideologies

Parents’ beliefs about their children’s acquisition of HLs and their own role in this process play a vital role in shaping their linguistic interactions. Research on FLP across various settings and languages uncovers influential elements guiding parents in maintaining HLs. This investigation illuminates the complex interplay of language ideologies and how they influence parental behaviors.

Most studies emphasise the importance of HL maintenance for culture and ethnicity (Chinen and Tucker 2005; He 2010; Oh and Fuligni 2010). Parents often see HL as an integral part of their cultural and ethnic identity and aim to preserve it as a way of passing on their cultural heritage to the next generation. They believe maintaining HL helps retain important cultural values, traditions, customs (Et-Bozkurt and Yağmur 2022; Otcu 2010), and religious practices (Abdi 2011; Alhjahmmed 2021; Bayram and Wright 2016) that collectively form their children’s identity.

For families with relatives in their HL-speaking community, the ability to communicate in HL becomes crucial for maintaining strong family ties. Parents prioritise HL to ensure effective communication and a sense of belonging with extended family members, especially with grandparents who generally do not speak the dominant language (Kang 2013; Little 2020; Nesteruk 2010). HL serves as a bridge that facilitates meaningful dialogue, enabling a deeper level of understanding among family members.

Parents see HL as valuable linguistic capital, believing it offers economic benefits, job opportunities, and enriched cultural knowledge (Little 2020; Park and Sarkar 2007). Linguistic capital refers to the value and advantage coming from knowing and using language effectively (Bourdieu 1977). It suggests that bilingual proficiency in both HL and the dominant language among children from transnational families is viewed as a significant factor that can enhance their future employment prospects. However, sometimes the significance attributed to HL by parents can extend beyond economic motivations. Families may embrace bilingualism as a means of nurturing their children as cosmopolitan individuals capable of forging social connections and bridging the gap between local and global perspectives (Guardado 2010).

HLs are attributed to a deep emotional connection, as they are seen as a powerful tool for parents to express their profound emotions to their children. Parents believe they can effectively convey their emotions to their children solely through their native language (Tannenbaum 2005). To them, their HL serves as a vital ‘tool for translating [their] innermost world to [their] children’ (167).

Parental language practices and management efforts

Family language practice pertains to the various patterns and preferences observed in language usage within family (Schwartz 2010; Spolsky 2007). Family language management, on the other hand, is the collection of ‘efforts to control the language of family members’ (Spolsky 2007, 430). They are ‘the implicit/explicit and subconscious/deliberate parental involvement and investment in providing linguistic conditions and context for language learning’ (Curdt-Christiansen 2012, 57). That is, while family language practices describe the actual linguistic behaviors within the family, family language management refers to the deliberate actions taken to shape or regulate those practices. They are intricately interconnected, with neither being able to exist in isolation from the other.

The most common family language practice is the incorporation of HL as an integral part of family communication (Fishman 2001; Polinsky and Kagan 2007; Smith-Christmas 2016). To achieve this, parents make deliberate efforts to exert control over the language environment within their homes, which can be viewed as seeking internal support for family language practices (Schwartz 2010). They may choose to establish HL rituals by using HL during mealtime conversations (Meyer Pitton 2013) or they may set linguistic rules regarding HL that family members are expected to follow (Kopeliovich 2010). They may actively encourage reading in HL, utilising both traditional print materials and digital platforms (Bose et al. 2023), as well as incorporating the use of television programs in HL (Fuentes 2020). In families where parents speak different languages, the one-parent one-language (OPOL) approach is also commonly implemented as a language management strategy (Baker and Wright 2021). Family language practices also encompass diverse linguistic practices such as translanguaging and codeswitching (Curdt-Christiansen 2016; García 2009; Karpava, Ringblom, and Zabrodskaja 2019; Lanza 2021; Lanza and Lomeu Gomes 2020; Pillai, Soh, and Kajita 2014).

Another form of language maintenance effort is seeking external support to facilitate family language practices (Schwartz 2010). Parents can seek sociocultural reinforcement for their children’s HL maintenance in social settings. It may take the form of formal educational institutions, such as weekend schools that offer language programs specific to HL speakers (Conteh, Riasat, and Begum 2013; Moin et al. 2013; Otcu 2010). It could involve engagement with religious centers such as mosques (Salahshoor 2017) or churches (Park and Sarkar 2007). Some parents may opt to change their neighbourhood to reside in proximity to a community that shares the same linguistic heritage, facilitating opportunities for interaction for their children (Barkhuizen 2006).

Challenges

The presence of monolingual language ideologies in society can exert a substantial influence on parents’ family language policies. The dominance of the majority language may foster a perception that HL holds lesser value or utility, leading to its devaluation and a preference for the majority language, consequently causing a shift away from HL (King 2000). In the US context, English-only policies impact HL speakers negatively (García 2009; Valdés 2011; Wright 2007). Research has shown that younger siblings often exhibit a higher usage of the dominant language compared to HL, even in cases where they share the same HL (Liang 2018). Language shift is predominantly initiated when a child starts formal education (Brown 2011; Süverdem 2022). Furthermore, ideological differences between parents and teachers can impact HL maintenance (Bezcioglu-Göktolga and Yagmur 2018). Also, adverse stereotypes or the stigmatisation linked to HL can influence FLP and potentially lead to a language shift (Bale, 2010; Parodi 2017)

Additional challenges encompass conflicting language ideologies and practices within families (Curdt-Christiansen 2016; Kopeliovich 2010), the emotional and imperceptible labour entailed in language maintenance (Caldas and Caron-Caldas 2002; Okita 2002), temporal limitations faced by parents due to occupational obligations (Pease-Alvarez 2003), and divergent viewpoints among partners (Schwartz 2008).

Methodology

Researcher’s positionality

To understand the experiences of Turkish families, it is vital to link my personal journey with theirs. As a multilingual researcher native in Turkish, I grasp its cultural significance and identity-shaping role. I acknowledge language’s capacity to connect individuals with their heritage. Having undergone a similar relocation process, I empathise with the parents. Considering these, I have tried to cultivate a research environment characterised by trust, empathy, and open discourse as suggested by Seidman (2006).

Research design

To investigate the lived experiences of the parents, I employed psychological phenomenology which involves identifying a phenomenon for investigation, bracketing out one’s preconceptions, and collecting data through in-depth interviews with multiple individuals who have experienced the phenomenon (Moustakas 2009).

First, I identified the phenomenon as FLP of Turkish parents through informal observations of families within my personal network. Then, I employed bracketing, which involved a sequence of steps: I recorded my own views on Turkish maintenance as a Turkish native and current US resident, avoiding pre-conceived codes during data analysis. I crafted semi-structured interview questions, refining them with input from two colleagues. The final bracketing step focused on data analysis, elaborated upon in the upcoming section.

Data collection and analysis

The data was collected through 30–50-minute semi-structured interviews from eight Turkish parents in Columbus, Ohio. I collaborated with the Turkish association to distribute a recruitment flyer, resulting in three initial participants. Using snowball sampling, I expanded the recruitment. I transcribed Turkish interviews verbatim, then translated them into English for analysis. The participants reviewed both versions for data accuracy during member-checking.

I employed Moustakas’s (2009) 4-step data analysis method, a modified version of the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen approach, to analyze the data. In Step 1, by conducting in-depth interviews, I provided a platform for parents to express their beliefs, emotions, and reflections. In Step 2, I examined the transcripts in line with my research questions, identified relevant statements, and grouped them under the following themes: Parental language ideologies, Parental language practices and management efforts, and Challenges. As this study involved only me as the researcher, Step 3, which entails analyzing the experiences of co-researchers, was unnecessary. In Step 4, I merged individual descriptions into a composite representation, capturing shared meanings.

Participant profiles

The study encompassed eight participants, consisting of six mothers and two fathers, all of whom had immigrated to the US from Türkiye. To ensure anonymity, pseudonyms were assigned to each participant. Sema, aged 47, holds a master’s degree in computer science, immigrated in 2003. She has two children aged 17 and 18. Esra arrived in the US in 2000; she, at 46, has two children aged 16 and 14 and works in real estate with a bachelor’s degree in business. Aylin and Kemal, immigrants since 2002, have two children aged 18 and 12. Aylin, 48, works as an assistant teacher with an associate degree, while Kemal is a 50-year-old professor. Murat, aged 48, is a professor and has two children aged 15 and 13 and immigrated in 2002. Sinem, aged 45, came to the US in 2002. Sinem, with a master’s degree in education, works at a high school. She has three children aged 8, 12, and 15. Hilal, aged 47, arrived 19 years ago, has two children aged 11 and 13. Hilal works at a bank with a bachelor’s degree in business. Duygu, 41, and her husband, a native English speaker, moved to the US seven years ago. They have two children aged 9 and 2.5, both holding Ph.D. degrees and working as university faculty members. All participants self-identified as native Turkish speakers with a high level of English proficiency.

Findings

Parental language ideologies

The data analysis yielded distinct subthemes about the language ideologies of the parents. They include Ethnolinguistic identity, Heritage language for extended family communication, Bilingualism as an asset, Heritage language for expressing inner worlds, and Accent in heritage language.

Ethnolinguistic identity

The parents’ dominant language ideology revolved around the creation of an ethnolinguistic identity (Giles and Johnson 1987; Valdés 2011) encompassing cultural and ethnic aspects of Turkish. Esra subtly linked language and culture, expressing her strong attachment: ‘I love Turkish and I am deeply connected to my culture’. Sema further emphasised language as a vessel for cultural values and heritage, asserting that ‘culture cannot exist without language’.

Certain parents viewed Turkish language proficiency as essential for ethnic identity. Esra linked her son’s lack of Turkish identity to his limited language skills. Sinem viewed language as pivotal in shaping and maintaining ethnic identity, urging her children to speak Turkish to maintain their Turkish identity, regardless of their birthplace.

Heritage language for extended family communication

Another ideology was the use of Turkish as a means to foster communication between families and their extended relatives. The parents believe that Turkish can enable their children to maintain familial connections. Murat and Esra stressed the importance of it for effective communication with relatives, emphasising the need to connect with the previous generation who do not speak English:

‘ … being able to communicate with grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, especially to continue their relationship with the previous generation because they don’t speak any English’.

‘I especially wanted them to learn Turkish more so that they could communicate with their grandparents and relatives’.

Sema approached the matter with a distinct viewpoint, expressing a sense of sorrow as she contemplated the future. She lamented the impending challenges her children might encounter in establishing ties with their extended family due to their limited Turkish skills. ‘My only sadness is that they won’t be able to reconnect with their families in the future’.

Bilingualism as an asset

Most parents had a positive view of their children being bilingual, including learning Turkish as an HL and other languages. Esra, for instance, stressed the value of bilingualism, noting that it imparts a broader perspective:

‘One who speaks only one language is one person, but one who speaks two languages is two people’.

Additional parents underscored the significance of learning multiple languages. Kemal expressed, ‘I’m in favor of learning as many languages as possible’. When I asked why, he responded: ‘because it opens a lot of doors’. The same emphasis was made by Murat, who claimed language proficiency can lead to career opportunities abroad. He was enthusiastic about supporting his children’s interest in learning multiple languages regardless of their prevalence or rarity. He said:

‘Also, learning a language can present you with unexpected job opportunities, such as teaching overseas. It can open a lot of doors, right? I’d fully support it if my children learned other languages. It doesn’t matter how widespread or rare the language is. Learning a language always benefits you’.

Aylin similarly embraced bilingualism’s advantages for her children, remarking, ‘I don’t want them to be monolingual like Americans. Knowing different languages will help them find better jobs’. She perceived bilingualism as an avenue for increased job opportunities, contrasting it with the constraint of American monolingualism.

Certain parents accentuated the influence of bilingualism on cognitive abilities. Murat invoked his experience of learning German, stating, ‘Well, what good will it do? It gives you a different way of thinking. I remember when I learned German, my thinking on certain subjects was determined within that context’. He highlighted the cognitive advantages of language learning for him, showing that it extended into providing a unique mental framework. However, Murat’s assumption pertained to his personal experience rather than that of his children. Duygu, observed that her child’s ability to speak two languages had enhanced his understanding and openness toward others: ‘I have seen that being bilingual made him more understanding and willing to understand people. I think he can look at things from different perspectives and have better empathy’.

Heritage language for expressing inner worlds

Some parents reported they perceive Turkish as the only language that effectively conveys their emotions to their children. Murat emphasised the emotional significance of Turkish as the language of intimate and genuine communication within his household. He explained: ‘I believe that I cannot communicate with my children in any language other than my mother tongue … when we have discussions, we discuss in Turkish. If someone is going to shout or get angry, it is in Turkish … our jokes are also in Turkish’.

Accent in heritage language

The parents conveyed their perspectives concerning their children’s accents in Turkish. Hilal recounted an anecdote involving her daughter, who expressed her distress over having an accent in Turkish: ‘I told her there is no such thing as feeling bad about a language. You’re going to learn it with bumps and bruises’. She believes that having an accent is a natural part of the language-learning process and should not be a source of embarrassment. Similarly, Duygu’s son also experienced concerns about his accent in Turkish. She acknowledged that her son has a foreign accent, but she emphasised that having an accent is not a cause for embarrassment instead it is a sign of bilingualism ‘I always tell him he has an accent because he speaks at least two languages’.

Parental language practices and management efforts

Below, I will share excerpts from family language practices and their management efforts, considering both internal and external strategies as categorised by Schwartz (2010).

Internal strategies

The parents prioritise Turkish as the main family communication mode to facilitate their children’s Turkish development. They employ internal strategies, including the use of Turkish-only policies. Murat elaborated on their FLP by stating, ‘We speak only Turkish at home. We do not speak any English at all’. He further explained emphasising their strict language separation policy,

‘But we’ve never forced them to speak Turkish outside of our home. We’ve had a very clear distinction: we speak Turkish at home or when we are with Turkish friends. If we are outside or in a group where no one speaks Turkish, we definitely speak English’.

Yet, the parents also shared instances where their strategies proved less effective. Esra explained her one-way Turkish-only policy by stating, ‘I always speak Turkish at the table. I also tell my children to speak Turkish, but they switch to English because it is easier for their father to speak English with them’. She emphasised her consistent effort to create a linguistic setting revolving around the use of Turkish during mealtime discussions. Nonetheless, she also noted the implementation of this policy is influenced by her husband’s comfort in communicating with their children using English.

The parents described their efforts to establish a Turkish-only policy in telecommunication practices. Sinem emphasised, ‘When I text them, I never use English. I always text in Turkish. My daughter tries to respond in Turkish, but she texts as she speaks’. Despite the challenges her daughter may encounter in responding in Turkish regarding her writing proficiency in Turkish, Sinem persists in her language practices, reinforcing the importance of Turkish language use and further contributing to the family’s language management.

The parents also demonstrated various multimodal strategies to manage the linguistic input of Turkish, such as watching TV shows and reading books. Kemal recounted, ‘ … my wife and daughter watch a lot of Turkish TV. My daughter’s Turkish has improved like that’. Hilal also expressed her efforts to encourage her daughter to watch ‘Avrupa Yakası¹’ for its comprehensibility, humour, and absence of foul language. Murat reflected on the initial implementation of a ‘book hour’ during the early stages of the pandemic, where the family read Turkish books, though the practice eventually ceased due to the children’s waning interest. Sinem recalled reading Turkish books to enhance her children’s vocabulary when they were younger, expressing a desire for increased Turkish book engagement. Duygu, while occasionally translating into English during reading, remains dedicated to integrating Turkish into their sessions. She also introduces Turkish content, like anime with Turkish subtitles.

Some parents revealed additional gamification strategies. One of them, referred to as the ‘yellow card/red card game’, involves a playful system wherein a family member is issued a yellow card for codeswitching during Turkish communication, and if the individual persists in using English, a red card is issued. When I asked whether the cards have any sanctions, Murat said, ‘We just laugh it off … If there were sanctions, it would only turn them off’, highlighting the absence of punitive measures to avoid discouraging language engagement. Moreover, he mentioned another game they play during car trips, a word puzzle. He explained: ‘ … you say a Turkish word, and the next person has to come up with a word that starts with the last letter of your word’. Another parent, Esra, shared a practice she uses during vacations to Türkiye: ‘I have them read the signs’. This approach engages her children in a game-like activity that promotes language development.

Duygu, the only Turkish parent in the study married to a native English speaker, described their One Parent One Language (OPOL) strategy. OPOL aims to cultivate simultaneous bilingualism in children by ensuring each parent consistently communicates with the child in a distinct language (Baker and Wright 2021). She and her husband primarily converse in English with each other and her husband uses English when interacting with their children. However, when her husband is not present, Duygu exclusively uses Turkish, maintaining a clear linguistic separation between the two languages. As she expressed, ‘We mostly speak English when my husband is around, but other than that, I always speak Turkish’.

External strategies

The parents showed a proactive approach to seeking external support, particularly through educational institutions. Sema described a valuable opportunity facilitated by the Turkish community, where volunteer Turkish students provided Turkish classes in a library. To her, this initiative allowed the children to develop their Turkish literacy and also enabled them to form friendships with other Turkish-speaking children, fostering a sense of community and cultural connection:

‘Our Turkish community found volunteer Turkish students … they had Turkish classes at a library … they were learning to read and write in Turkish … Most importantly, they became friends with the children of other Turkish friends’.

Aylin also emphasised the importance of seeking external support by mentioning Turkish classes at the same library. She, as an experienced teacher, actively contributed to the effort by volunteering for two years to help organise Turkish classes. This initiative provided additional opportunities for the children to practice their Turkish during weekends: ‘There were Turkish classes at a library. Because of my experience, I helped them for two years. That school doesn’t exist anymore’.

The parents shared their endeavours to establish immersive contexts for their children’s Turkish use. Sema detailed a deliberate choice to enhance her daughter’s Turkish through employment at a Turkish friend’s pizza restaurant. This experience offered exclusive and authentic Turkish interactions. Two summers at the restaurant led to notable advances in her Turkish proficiency.

The other parents discussed their efforts to immerse their children in Turkish-speaking settings, particularly during visits to Türkiye. Kemal noted their annual trips significantly influence his children’s Turkish language development. His children thrive in the immersive environment. These visits bolster their Turkish proficiency. Sema similarly recognised regular trips to Türkiye enhance children’s language skills. Sinem reiterated the beneficial influence of their yearly trips to Türkiye. Engaging with family members there prompt more consistent Turkish usage, resulting in notable skill improvement. The exposure to Turkish during their stay leads to a temporary but distinct shift toward Turkish, even upon return to their English-speaking context.

Challenges

Language shift

The findings indicated a general agreement among the parents that their children were able to speak Turkish until the commencement of their primary education, but rapidly transitioned to using English as the primary language. They underscored the challenge of sustaining Turkish amidst the linguistic and sociocultural pull of the dominant language. Esra said, ‘Believe me, it is very interesting how they suddenly switched to English. Only English after starting school …  ’ Several other parents also stated similar things

‘Her Turkish was excellent until she started school’. (Hilal)

‘She spoke only Turkish until she started kindergarten’. (Sinem)

Language shift becomes more pronounced when children are less willing to uphold Turkish. Hilal highlighted this challenge, stating that her younger child does not have the ‘desire’ to learn Turkish. Based on her perspective, language acquisition bears resemblances to HL maintenance, with desire being a decisive factor. Consequently, if a child possesses a genuine inclination to uphold their HL, it becomes feasible to achieve this objective.

Absence of sociocultural support

The parents emphasised the absence of a sociocultural environment facilitating communication with Turkish speakers. They observed limited exposure for their children to other Turkish speakers, thus restricting their linguistic input. Consequently, they remain the primary Turkish input source, which might not sufficiently sustain the language. Sinem underscored this by noting, ‘Since they don’t hear Turkish outside, they only know as much Turkish as we speak at home’. Other parents also indicated similar concerns:

‘There’s no social environment for Turkish’. (Hilal)

‘The biggest challenge … there aren’t many people around who speak Turkish’. (Duygu)

Diverging perspectives between spouses

Although all the parents aimed to maintain Turkish for their children, instances emerged where spouses held differing opinions. Esra noted a disparity between her and her husband. She attributed his perspective to his past experience living and working in the US:

‘It is very important to me. It isn’t that important to my husband … he had worked in America before … lived here for a while … So, our children’s learning Turkish isn’t very important to him’.

She also revealed her occasional frustration as her husband does not share her stance, stating, ‘ … but they switch to English because it is easier for their father to speak English with them. Then, I’m like the bad cop at home, trying to force them to speak Turkish’. Despite being a native Turkish speaker, the father opts for English, which, in Esra’s opinion, counteracts her efforts. This dynamic leaves her discontented, cast in the role of the ‘bad cop’ for advocating the use of Turkish.

There were other couples with contrasting viewpoints. An excerpt from their conversation reveals the father’s relatively pessimistic outlook, while the mother, while less pessimistic, tends to evade thoughts about their children’s Turkish maintenance.

Kemal: … I am not very hopeful, and I think that the biggest deficiency of the Turks in America is that they do not know Turkish … Turkish children growing up in Europe know Turkish better. I’m really in awe at how they can maintain Turkish … the child is born in Europe, not to be condescending, but their parents are not as educated as we are, but those children … become musicians, writers, and artists who speak Turkish.

Aylin: I’m not so desperate as him … 

Kemal: How will they maintain it then?

Aylin: I try not to think about the future so much though, because it scares me.

Both parents were motivated to uphold their children’s HL, yet Kemal displayed less optimism due to comparisons with European Turkish heritage speakers. This prompted a negative reaction from Aylin, leaving him curious for further insight, although her response remained vague. In a way, Aylin seemed to acknowledge the challenges ahead in their children’s HL journey.

Discussion

Language ideologies

A notable theme that emerged from the study centred on the discourse of ethnolinguistic identity. Ethnolinguistic identity encompasses ‘intuitions of social categoriality emerging from certain cultural assumptions about language’ (Silverstein 2003, 532). The study revealed parents’ attachment to the Turkish language and culture, emphasising its pivotal role in their children’s national identity formation. They view language as a vessel of cultural heritage. Prior research emphasises the role of HL in preserving culture, traditions, and roots (Abdi 2011; Brown 2011; Guardado 2010; Otcu 2010; Park and Sarkar 2007). Children’s initial development of a sense of cultural and ethnolinguistic group membership largely occurs within the home contexts in which they are raised (Valdés 2011). Thus, the interactions, languages spoken, cultural practices, and social norms they experience in these contexts contribute significantly to the shaping of their identity.

This ideology finds further support in the monolingual paradigm associated with the status of Turkish in Türkiye. As the only official language, Turkish serves as a potent sociolinguistic symbol of nationality. Türkiye’s historical context features a national language reform that has highlighted the role of Turkish in shaping national identity (Lewis 2002). This perspective continues to influence the present-day education system and it still ‘resonates with much of the population’ (Schluter 2021, 2). Having received most of their education in Türkiye, the parents also subscribe to this nation-state ideology. Therefore, Turkishness, to them, is intricately linked to the Turkish language.

The significance of HL maintenance to communicate with extended family members constituted another vital aspect of the parents’ ideologies. In studies centered on transnational families, it is evident that grandparents or other extended family members often lack proficiency in the dominant language (Kang 2013, 2015; Little 2020; Nesteruk 2010). Consequently, there exists a prevailing belief that the maintenance of HL is essential to enable effective communication with these individuals. Also, this finding might be corroborated by the structure of traditional Turkish families. Most traditional Turkish families are characterised by substantial frequent interaction among close relatives (Sunar and Okman Fişek 2005). In this respect, Turkish can serve as a means to maintain such interactions.

The importance of bilingualism was also evident in the parents’ ideologies. This is consistent with prior research (King and Fogle 2006; Mak et al. 2023; Park and Sarkar 2007; Surrain 2021) and could potentially be linked to the comparatively higher level of education among the parents. While having a higher level of education is not a determinant for holding positive attitudes toward bilingualism, educated parents tend to approach information regarding their children’s bilingualism more critically (King and Fogle 2006). They are not solely reliant on a single source of advice or information, demonstrating a discerning perspective in making decisions related to their children’s bilingual upbringing. Additionally, certain parents highlighted the cognitive advantages of bilingualism, including the development of empathy and a unique cognitive perspective. This resonates with the parents’ assumption in Guardado’s (2010) study who believed that HL learning provides a broader vision of the world. Such an assumption may not be baseless, as it also aligns with prior research that has identified a positive relationship between bilingualism and empathy (Javor 2016), and a more creative approach to problem-solving and understanding events (Bialystok 2001).

The parents also embrace neoliberal language ideologies, aligning with the principles of neoliberalism, emphasising individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within a framework of private property rights, free trade, and markets (Harvey 2011). Neoliberal language ideologies prioritise economic and individualistic aspects of language use and learning (Bourdieu 2009; Piller and Cho 2013). While these ideologies promote individual freedom in pursuing language learning opportunities, they often lead to the prioritisation of specific languages for economic purposes, downplaying the cultural and social dimensions of language (Pennycook 2006; Phillipson 1992; 2009).

The parents view Turkish proficiency as an investment in their children’s future, emphasising its potential to create better job opportunities and serve as a tool for personal and professional growth. In this context, Turkish operates within a linguistic marketplace, where it is valued as a commodity with economic worth (Bourdieu 1977). However, considering the global dominance of English and the symbolic value of Turkish in contrast, the parents’ ideologies can also be seen as an attempt to rationalise their emotional attachment to Turkish.

The parents also shared the belief that they can effectively communicate with their children at an emotional level by only using Turkish. This finding aligns with previous research (Jeon 2020; Kopeliovich 2010; Tannenbaum 2005). However, it also appears that parents prefer to express their emotions in the language in which they have the highest proficiency, typically their native language. This ideology may be viewed as somewhat ‘selfish’ as indicated by one of the parents, as it overlooks the fact that children can also reciprocate and effectively respond to emotional remarks in their own highest proficient language, often the dominant language (Montrul 2010).

The final ideology was parents’ acceptance and support of their children’s foreign-accented Turkish speech. This liberal ideology contrasts with the common tendency to judge individuals based on their accents and native-speakerism (Holliday 2006; Lippi-Green 1994). Given that HL speakers frequently exhibit a foreign accent influenced by their dominant language (Kupisch et al. 2014; Stangen et al. 2015), the parents’ rational attitudes come as no surprise. Instead of emphasising the perception of accent, they prioritise the other aspects of the HL.

Language practices and management efforts

One of the noteworthy internal strategies adopted by the parents was the strict adherence to Turkish-only policies within their households. The Turkish-only policy extended to telecommunication practices as well. Such policies aim to create a cohesive Turkish-speaking environment, supporting their children’s HL development. Furthermore, the parents use multimodal strategies such as watching Turkish TV, reading books, and playing language games to enrich language exposure and engagement. These findings are corroborated by previous research (Fishman 2001; Polinsky and Kagan 2007; Smith-Christmas 2016). Gamification strategies, like the ‘yellow card red card’ game and the word puzzle, have the potential to promote language use while maintaining an encouraging atmosphere within the family. Research has shown that educational games may enhance learners’ motivation and engagement (Jackson and McNamara, 2013; Millis et al. 2017). The findings of this study also represent a form of informal learning. However, it is important to acknowledge that Turkish-only policies may also imply a restrictive perception of the HL as solely a home language, suggesting that it may not be considered appropriate for use in educational settings and broader society. Furthermore, the adoption of the OPOL strategy highlighted the parent’s deliberate efforts to create a structured language environment for her children. While parental input plays a pivotal role in the maintenance of an HL, it is noteworthy that the OPOL approach may not consistently yield optimal outcomes (De Houwer 2007). Children may continue to use the dominant language. Moreover, OPOL may reflect a separationist language ideology, leading to a differentiation between the mother’s language and the father’s language. This differentiation could potentially have adverse effects on the minority language parent (De Houwer 2015).

For external strategies, the parents indicated they seek support through educational institutions and community networks. Language learning is a socially mediated process (Tomasello 1992). The maintenance and development of an HL rely on children having access to a sociocultural environment where they interact with individuals who speak the language. Consequently, the endeavours made by families in this regard are understandable, as effective language learning necessitates meaningful communication within one’s social sphere.

Challenges

Parents noted three main challenges: their children’s language shift, a lack of a suitable social environment to support Turkish, and disagreements with their spouses over FLPs. It is not uncommon for HL speakers to undergo a language shift after starting school (Fishman 1991; Hunt and Davis 2019; Montrul 2023; Schwartz 2010; Smith-Christmas 2018; Tse 2001; Wiley and Valdés 2000). Globally, linguistic assimilation into dominant languages is widely acknowledged (García 2009; Skutnabb-Kangas 2012), with differential power dynamics leading to one cultural and linguistic group exerting dominance over others (Tse 2001). Groups with limited political, social, and economic power often face challenges in influencing policies impacting them, such as the availability of social services in their home language and the language of instruction for their children in schools (Canagarajah 2008; Valdés 2001). Consequently, the majority of HLs often suffer from neglect or are subject to educational initiatives conducted only within ‘community-based after-school or weekend programs’ (Wiley and Valdés 2000, p. v). However, for Turkish, even such institutions are non-existent in the context of Columbus, Ohio, which may further compound the language shift, contributing to the gradual decline of HL proficiency within the Turkish community.

The parents’ second challenge aligns with the universally recognised principle that language acquisition primarily occurs through active engagement in social interactions with others (Ochs and Schieffelin 1984; Tomasello 1992; Vygotsky 1978). Socialisation is crucial for individuals to develop competence within society, encompassing an understanding of its functions and interpretations across various social situations (Ochs and Schieffelin 1984). In environments conducive to language acquisition, children tend to internalise linguistic practices from their peers (Harris 1995). Yet, when lacking such an environment, they gravitate toward the language that provides sociocultural interactions. Despite the substantial Turkish diaspora in Columbus, their settlement pattern differs from other immigrant groups, as Turkish individuals are dispersed across various city districts. As a result, their children predominantly engage in social interactions with white native English-speaking peers, accelerating their English acquisition, already supplemented by schooling exposure.

Furthermore, the parents drew attention to a challenge arising from differing viewpoints between themselves and their spouses. The shaping of language ideologies involves an intricate interplay of social, historical, and cultural factors (Irvine and Gal 2000; Kroskrity 2004; Woolard 2020), which can manifest in unique ways at a personal level. Even couples who share similar backgrounds can hold contrasting beliefs (Curdt-Christiansen 2016; King, Fogle, and Logan-Terry 2008; Spolsky 2004). In the case of Kemal and Aylin, there was a divergence in their attitudes toward the HL, with Kemal adopting a stricter stance and Aylin demonstrating a more optimistic perspective. This divergence aligns with the traditional Turkish family structure, where fathers are often perceived as authoritative figures, while mothers are considered as approachable and empathetic ones (Sunar and Okman Fişek 2005). Such variations in parental attitudes toward maintaining the HL may stem from their individual emotional connections and cultural roles. It is important to consider the active role of children within these contrasting language policies. While Esra attributed her husband’s non-compliance to their Turkish-only policy, his actions might not solely arise from his own reluctance to uphold Turkish. Their children’s independent choices may have an influence on shaping their FLP. The involvement of children in FLP decisions is significant and should not be overlooked (Fogle 2013).

Conclusion

This study provides insights into the FLPs of Turkish parents in the US, highlighting their strong attachment to the Turkish language and culture for shaping their children’s ethnolinguistic identity. Their appreciation for language’s role in connecting with extended family and upholding traditions is coupled with positive attitudes toward bilingualism. While employing strategies such as Turkish-only policies and seeking community resources, challenges arise from language shifts, a lack of suitable social environments, and differing language ideologies between spouses.

Acknowledging both methodological and conceptual limitations, this study suggests avenues for future research. Methodologically, the study focused on interviewing parents, suggesting the inclusion of children’s perspectives as well (Baker and Wright 2021; Fogle 2013). By recognising children’s agency and understanding the collaborative nature of policy formation, a deeper understanding of FLPs can be achieved. Furthermore, a longitudinal and interactional approach, combined with ethnographic perspectives, could unveil the evolving language practices and complexities of HL maintenance (Lanza and Lomeu Gomes 2020).

Regarding conceptual limitations, it is important to mention that most participants had higher educational backgrounds, which aligns with wider trends among Turkish individuals in the US. Investigating parents with diverse educational backgrounds might produce varied results. Additionally, the study’s focus on Columbus underscores the importance of broader geographical representation across the US to gain a comprehensive insight into FLPs of Turkish parents.

While the study considered cultural preservation, it did not deeply explore how race influences parents’ language decisions. Investigating the interplay between racial identity and language policies could illuminate how perceptions of racial status impact language maintenance. Similarly, while socioeconomic factors were acknowledged, their influence on language choices and priorities warrants further examination, particularly how economic challenges shape parents’ decisions. Addressing these methodological and conceptual gaps may contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of FLPs of Turkish families.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 A Turkish sitcom.