Procesamiento de los datos

Family language policy (FLP) studies is a relatively new sub-field of LPP scholarship concerned with understanding “explicit (Shohamy 2006) and overt (Schiffman 1996) planning in relation to language use within the home among family members” (King,

Fogle, & Logan-Terry, 2008, p. 907). FLP has roots in language planning and policy and child language acquisition studies, and attends to LPP activities in relation to language choice and use within the home and among family members. According to King et al. (2008), studies on family language policy complement LPP scholarship which has mostly focused on institutional contexts, and can also help shed light on the “dynamic, muddled and nuanced process” (p. 917) of intergenerational transmission, long concerning

scholars interested in processes of language maintenance and revitalization.

LPP scholarship attends to “the language ideologies of family members (what family members believe about language), language practices (what they do with language), and language management (what efforts they make to maintain language)” (Curdt-

Christiansen, 2013, p. 2; see also King & Fogle, 2013; Spolsky, 2012), illuminating how families maintain or lose their languages and the relationships between private domains and public spheres. Since its origins, FLP research has highlighted the ideologies behind parenting and language practices that guide FLP as well as the sources of authority parents draw on to inform their language management choices (Armstrong, 2014; Curdt- Christiansen, 2009; King & Fogle, 2006; Lytra, 2012), the multifaceted role of

grandparents in heritage language and linguistic/cultural identity maintenance (King & Haboud, 2011; Ruby, 2012; Sichra, 2016), the interplay of FLP and literacy practices (Patrick, Budach, & Muckpaloo, 2012; Stavans, 2012) and the value of out-of-school initiatives in supporting Aboriginal FLP in urban contexts (Hermes & King, 2013; Patrick et al., 2012). While highlighting the deliberate nature of establishing minority language use, most of these studies also highlight the dynamic and organic nature of FLP.

Family language policy, similar to educational language policies, does not evolve in linear or organized ways but is in constant flux and negotiation (Armstrong, 2014).

In a recent review, King and Fogle (2013) note some of the significant shifts and future trajectories of this developing field. Specifically, they note and welcome an increased attention to a diverse range of family types, languages and social contexts, including non-traditional families, minority languages and transnational and diasporic contexts. Despite the predominance of research focused on the ideologies and practices behind parental child rearing language practices, King and Fogle also emphasize the field’s needed attention to children agency, as children are not only recipients of policies but shape and influence those policies (Gallo & Hornberger, 2017; Kheirkhah & Cekaite, 2018; Luykx, 2005).

The field of language socialization studies shares an attention to looking at language use and child language acquisition from an ethnographic perspective, though has different origins, emerging as a direct branch of ethnography of communication studies. Since its origins, this field has examined “socialization through language and socialization into

language” (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2008, p. 5) in homes, but also in communities, schools and society more largely (see also Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002; Ochs and Schieffelin, 1984). I specifically draw on work in this field to understand how youth bilingualism is informed by, and interacts with, local notions and ideologies of language, youthhood, personhood, teaching and learning in dynamic ways (Howard, 2008), as well as the varying “social networks, pressures and opportunities” (Luykx, 2003, p. 40-41) for language development youth encounter and co-construct as they are socialized into

Combining analytical tools and findings from these complementary fields of research, I too focus on the experiences and participation roles of youth and family members from similar and different generations, the sociocultural norms and values reflected in family interactions and the ideologies about language, learning and youth which are constructed and maintained across family interactions (see Chapters 5 and 6). My study of family language policy and socialization practices across urban and rural contexts of the Peruvian Andes seeks to contribute to our growing understanding of the roles and experiences of youth who are speakers and learners of an Indigenous language.

2.2.2.1 Youth and family Indigenous language policy and socialization

Recent anthropological and educational research offers compelling ethnographic accounts of the roles and effects of adult and youth Indigenous language practices and beliefs in home and family domains in urbanizing and/or globalizing contexts of language shift. Wyman’s (2012) nuanced account of Yup’ik family language socialization shows the diversity of trajectories present even within small rural communities. Within the Yup’ik community of study, parents make different language choices in order to

accommodate to and respond to their children’s changing proficiencies in Yup’ik. What is more, Wyman finds that siblings can also have powerful roles in socializing, or not, their similar and differently aged siblings into Indigenous language practices.

Home and community spaces have been described as spaces where youth encounter multiple ideological stances which they “take up […] in diverse ways—resisting, accommodating, and sometimes feeling compelled to “forsake who they are.” (McCarty et al., 2009, p. 303). In the North American context, Nicholas (2014) recounts how Hopi

elders often describe youth as immature or not Hopi enough since they don’t participate in cultural practices viewed as appropriate by elders. Wyman (2012) also describes how Yup’ik adults explained the cause of Yup’ik language shift based on the argument that youth no longer wanted to speak the language or just wanted to act White, though causes are more complex than youth individual decisions. In fact, Yup’ik youth viewed Yup’ik maintenance and endangerment as tied to “local relationships, practices, knowledge systems and geographical spaces” (p. 364). These mixed ideological messages often cause Indigenous youth to develop linguistic insecurities, feeling ashamed for not speaking how they or their elders want them to; this can result in the cloaking of their productive and receptive language abilities and their learning interest as heritage language learners (McCarty et al, 2009). What is more, language socialization research has shed light on how children engage in ideological transformations, giving meaning to Indigenous language practices and naturalizing language shift in different ways than adults (Meek, 2007); while ethnographic research has demonstrated how Pueblo and Navajo youth find ways to create ties to their heritage languages and encourage language use within their families (Lee, 2014), as well as develop relationships with elders and connections to local knowledge systems through participation in subsistence, agricultural and ceremonial practices (Nicholas, 2014; Wyman, 2012).

In the case of research conducted in the Andes, Luykx (2005) highlights how Aymara children can often act as language socializers of parents in contexts of Indigenous

language shift. Children’s futures shape parents’ linguistic aspirations and also bring families into contact with new language varieties, due to rural-urban migration and also

start to use (p. 1410-1411). Finally, King and Haboud (2011) study grandparent-

grandchildren relationships in rural Ecuador and caution that intergenerational Quichua transmission cannot be taken for granted. Changing conceptions of childhood and parenthood, shaped by parental international migration, influence family language choices and result in limited opportunities to pass Quichua to young learners (see also Sichra, 2016). In Chapters 5 and 6, I too explore the practices and ideologies shared by family members of various generations, as well as those that differed, offering insights on the strong socializing roles of siblings and how particular family relationships helped pull youth towards, and away from, Quechua.