ISSUES OF THE LANGUAGE POLICY OF FAMILIES WITH UKRAINIAN ORIGIN IN THE ESTONIAN EDUCATIONAL SPACE.

• Author: Kuun, Elvira

1. Introduction

   Based on statistics, of the 3% of Ukrainians living in Tallinn a relatively small percentage (1 %) use Ukrainian as their mother tongue (REL 2011). Some Ukrainians living in Tallinn and elsewhere in Estonia are newly arrived immigrants.

   The definition of a newly arrived immigrant is based on the definition of 'newly arrived immigrant' provided in Riigi Teataja, which means an adult person from the European Union or a third country who has lived in Estonia for up to five years (Riigi Teataja 2014). Currently, newly arrived immigrants to Estonia settle mainly in Tallinn (48%) and Harju County (9%), and there are also Ukrainian citizens among them (Kaldur et al. 2019). The reasons for immigration are also different from before: there are a certain number of Ukrainian war refugees alongside those who change their country of residence for better work or other economic reasons.

   The article examines family language policy (FLP). In the field of FLP research, Bernard Spolsky's (2004 and 2009) model has proven to be influential, envisaging FLP to be made up of three components: language practices, language management, and language ideologies (see also Curdt-Christiansen 2018). According to Spolsky's theory (2004), family language ideology is a more general understanding of different languages and their learning, which is directly related to the perception of the need to use languages: which language is deemed the most appropriate in certain areas etc. Spolsky (2004: 5) defines language management as a means of influence to change language choices by using different types of intervention. In this article, language practice means languages used in different areas and different versions of languages, which, in addition to language ideologies developed within the family, can be directly linked to the perception of the formality of the situation, determining which language is appropriate to use (ibid.).

   As language ideologies can be seen in the context of self-determination, the article also addresses the aspects of the dynamism of ethnic identity and even the emergence of competing identities (see also Seals 2019). In other words, the article relies on the definition of ethnic identity where it is not necessarily seen as something static but instead as a phenomenon that may renew over time according to changing circumstances (e.g. migration) (Liebscher and Dailey-O'Cain 2013), also in relation to the language and educational space. The reader can find examples of the respective approach in subsection 5.3.

   The objectives of the study on which this article is based are the following: 1) to study which factors have influenced the decision of language managers in the choice of language of education; 2) to determine whether the choice of language of education targets the language practices of both the parents and their children; 3) to determine which factors encourage some families to maintain the language and culture of their ethnic minority while not all families succeed in doing so?

   Based on the objectives of the study, I raised the following research questions: What kind of internal and external language management tools are parents of the studied families using for their children?

   Which language ideologies are the studied parents introducing to their children, incl. while making educational choices?

   What are the opinions of parents of children studying at the Sunday School Nadija for the study of Ukrainian language and culture established in Tallinn regarding the role of the school in supporting the language policy objectives of the families?

   Interviews conducted with families allow conclusions to be drawn about the language policy chosen by the language managers and considering the data received as a case study (see also e.g. Lazdina and Marten 2021). I am not, of course, claiming that the results obtained are applicable to all Estonian Ukrainians (both Ukrainian and Russian speakers). However, as with this type of research, I can provide detailed knowledge of which language ideologies represent the language choices made in the families of language managers.

   First, an overview of the definitions concerning FLP is provided, and it is also associated with the aspect of maintaining identity. Among others, the study focuses on the emotional experiences of adapting to the new environment and if and how language practices of Ukrainian families are influenced by Estonian and Russianlanguage basic education and Ukrainian-language hobby education. The empirical part of the article describes the language practices, language management and language ideologies of each language manager's family. The article ends with a discussion and a summary.

2. The peculiarity of family language policy

   FLP is called home language planning in the home environment, which may in some cases be subconscious or externally hidden (see also Curdt-Christiansen 2009 and 2018, King et al. 2008, Soler and Zabrodskaja 2017, Verschik and Doyle 2017). In general, there is currently a trend in the field of FLP research where a greater emphasis is put on the general background of families and the interplay between decisions made in the family and the expectations of society (see e.g. Higgins 2018). I have taken this approach to FLP as a basis.

   It should be added, however, that in the field of FLP, as a recent research trend, the emotions and opinions of children and teenagers towards the FLP implemented by their parents have started to be taken into account (see e.g. Wilson 2019 and 2020). However, it is important to note that while some FLP researchers (e.g. Fogle and King 2013, Kopeliovitch 2013, Palviainen and Boyd 2013, Verschik and Doyle 2017, Wilson 2019 and 2020) have approached FLP through the cognition prism of a child or an adolescent, FLP research has so far mostly focused only on the endeavours and desires of adults (Schwartz 2010, Wilson 2020). To date, little research has been done on bilingual or multilingual school-age adolescents whose sociolinguistic environment reduces the use of a heritage language in connection with enrolment in a general education school (Rothman 2009). Sonia Wilson has rightly pointed out that in the field of FLP, the focus of research should also include the children's own views on the perception of bilingualism and plurilingualism in their family in order to develop an integrated approach to aspects related to FLP (Wilson 2020).

   It has been determined that the flexibility of parents in establishing language ideologies is a very important criterion as a whole in perceiving FLP as positive both for the parents and for the children themselves (Kopeliovitch 2013, Soler and Zabrodskaja 2017). More information on how children themselves perceive the FLP established in the family could help, if necessary, the family in directing their language ideologies (Wilson 2020), among others, making corrections, as also indicated by the results of the study serving as a basis for this article.

   As FLP can be influenced by many factors, the potential changes in the FLP determine its dynamic nature (see Curdt-Christiansen 2018). By extending the aforementioned FLP model of Spolsky (2004 and 2009), other, improved FLP frameworks can be created based on different emphases (Curdt-Christiansen 2018, Lazdina and Marten 2021, Wilson 2020). In particular, although Spolsky himself has emphasised non-linguistic factors such as the educational space surrounding the children as the influencer of the language ideologies of parents in the development of FLP in addition to the three main components of FLP (Spolsky 2009), X. L. CurdtChristiansen (2018), for example, has outlined in his study that in addition to the dynamism of FLP, the sociolinguistic, socioeconomic and political circumstances of the families also have an impact. Sanita Lazdina and Heiko F. Marten (2021) who have studied similar topics in Latvia, for example, have used this expanded FLP model as a basis for their research. Although as the author of the article, I agree that FLP involves many aspects, I am still of the opinion that the core of FLP can indeed be reduced to the three components of FLP proposed by Spolsky (2004 and 2009). As such, I have used these as key aspects in answering the research questions.

   However, it is important to note that introducing FLP in the family may still be quite problematic in some cases. It is certainly not possible to say that all children and adolescents automatically subject to the language policy established in the family. It has been found that they could very consciously also avoid using their language of origin (see also Bergroth and Palviainen 2017, Mills 2001, Tuominen 1999). Children and adolescents may also openly protest their parents' FLP (see e.g. Kaveh 2018) as was also shown in one case in this study. Therefore, it can be concluded that children are far from always being in the role of passive recipients of the language ideologies of their parents. Moreover, children have also been seen as intermediaries of FLP, i.e. important developers of FLP (see e.g. Smith-Christmas 2020).

   It has been observed that relaxing the boundaries of rigid language practices at home provides children with a minority language background a better opportunity for shaping their cultural identity (Wilson 2020). In reality, there is no clear rule or guarantee that the language practices, ideologies or a cultural identity of the members of a family should necessarily overlap (see e.g. Czubinska 2017, Duff 2015), especially considering the migration history of migrant families (CurdtChristiansen and Huang 2020), the language policy of the country of destination, and the internal intentions, including in relation to the identity, of immigrants. The author of the article agrees with the opinion of Andree Tabouret-Keller (2000) that everyone has the right to construct their own identity, for example by creating new, among others, hybrid...