LANGUAGE POLICY OF BILINGUAL FAMILY TOWARDS CHILDREN WORDS PRODUCTION.
LANGUAGE POLICY OF BILINGUAL
FAMILY TOWARDS CHILDREN’S WORDS
PRODUCTION
A Thesis
By:
Ira Maria Fran Lumbanbatu 8106111054
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program to Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Magister Humaniora
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
(2)
LANGUAGE POLICY OF BILINGUAL
FAMILY TOWARDS CHILDREN’S WORDS
PRODUCTION
A Thesis
By:
Ira Maria Fran Lumbanbatu 8106111054
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program to Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Magister Humaniora
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
(3)
A THESIS
LANGUACE POLTCY CIF BILINGUAL F'Al\fiLY TOWARSS CHILDREN WORD'S PR.ODUCTION
BY:
IRA MARIA FRAN LUMBAI\BATU
Registration Number: 810611 1054
English Applied Linguistics Study Program Postgraduate School State University of Medan
This Thesis was examined on 31 January 20l3by the Board of Examiners Approved by:
Adviser Comnision
Adviser I Adviser
II
Prof. Dr. Liace Sihombing, M. Pd.
NrP. 19610425 198601 2 001
ul Muin Sibuea, M. Pd. 198103 I 002
Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M. PC.
NrP. 19581 021 198303 2 002
The Head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program
Pror. Dr.
NIP. 1
(4)
Approval
The thesis was examined on 3l January 2013 by the Board ofExaminers Board of Examiners
Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M. pd.
MP. 19581021 198303 2 002
Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M. pd. }.IIP. 1961042s t986012 001
Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., ph. D. MP.19550113 198203 1 002
Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, I\rt. Hum }\rIP.19700522 200112 2 oot
Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. pd NIP. 19590713 198601 1001
(5)
ABSTRACT
Ira Maria Fran Lumbanbatu, 2013. Language Policy of Bilingual Family
towards Children’s Words Production. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistic
Study Program. Postgraduate School. State University of Medan.
The objectives of this study are to investigate the way the bilingual families decide their own language policy through the components of language policy, the way the parents apply language policy to succeed their children words production, and to find out the factors why the parents apply the language policy the way they are. This research applied qualitative approach by phenomenology term through observation, questionnaire and in – depth interview. The data were collected from bilingual families who come from different educational background namely low educational of parents, middle educational of parents and high educational background of parents. The research findings showed that bilingual families use the components of language policy namely language ideology, language practice and language management. Mostly parents considered language ideology and language management. Otherwise, language practice were not applied by them completely, it can be seen through language that their children use will be different with what the parents have expected. Language policy is applied in family by practicing the language directly. There are some influences that make the parents practice the language directly, namely: influences of outside home and there is no balance guidance of practicing language between mother and father. Factors that support parents in conducting language policy are intermarriage, maintaining the language particularly tribal language, the position of language using in formal context such as school and the position of language which is used in their environment.
(6)
ABSTRAK
Ira Maria Fran Lumbanbatu, 2013. Kebijakan Bahasa oleh Keluarga Bilingual dan Kaitannya terhadap Produksi Bahasa Anak. Tesis. Program Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Sekolah Pasca Sarjana. Universitas Negeri Medan.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui cara keluarga-keluarga bilingual memutuskan penggunaan bahasa mereka sendiri melalui komponen-komponen kebijakan bahasa, cara para orangtua menerapkan kebijakan bahasa untuk menyukseskan produksi bahasa anak mereka dan meneliti mengapa para orangtua menerapkan kebijakan bahasa dengan cara mereka. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan pendekatan kualitatif dengan menganalisis phenomena kebijakan penggunaan bahasa oleh keluarga bilingual melalui observasi, kuesioner dan wawancara mendalam. Data dikumpulkan dari keluarga bilingual yang berasal dari latar belakang pendidikan yang berbeda yaitu orangtua dengan latar belakang pendidikan rendah, orang tua dengan latar belakang pendidikan menengah dan orangtua dengan latar belakang pendidikan tinggi. Temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa keluarga bilingual menggunakan komponen-komponen kebijakan bahasa yaitu ideologi bahasa, praktek bahasa dan manajemen bahasa. Hampir semua orangtua mempertimbangkan ideologi dan manajemen bahasa mereka. Sebaliknya, praktek bahasa tidak diterapkan oleh mereka dengan baik, hal ini dapat dilihat melalui bahasa yang anak – anak mereka gunakan akan berbeda dengan apa yang orangtua mereka harapkan. Kebijakan bahasa diterapkan dalam keluarga dengan mempraktekkan bahasa itu secara langsung. Ada beberapa pengaruh yang membuat orangtua mempraktekkan bahasa secara langsung, yaitu: pengaruh – pengaruh dari luar rumah dan tidak adanya keseimbangan bimbingan praktek bahasa antara ayah dan ibu. Faktor – faktor yang mendukung orangtua
dalam melakukan kebijakan bahasa adalah perkawinan campuran,
mempertahankan bahasa khususnya bahasa suku, posisi bahasa yang digunakan pada kondisi formal seperti sekolah dan posisi bahasa yang digunakan dalam lingkungan mereka.
(7)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, praise and thank to Jesus Christ and Holy Mary for all blessings, who has granted countless opportunity, strength and acknowledge to the writer so that she has been finally able to accomplish her thesis.
Then, the writer thanks to her first advisor Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M. Pd. who advice and comments her thesis. She owes a real debt of gratitude to her second advisor, Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M. Pd., for her encouragement, critism, reviews, comments, suggestions and assistance which were extremely helpful.
Her warmly gratitude is extended to Prof. Amrin Saragih, M. A, Ph. D., Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M. Pd., and Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd. as the examiners who contribute constructive criticism and offer valuable contributions and suggestions.
She would like to thank to all lectures of English Applied Linguistics Program for the treasure of knowledge they have transferred to her during the course of her study. In particular, she would like to thank Prof. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., Head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M. Hum., Secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, who offered many valuable ideas and helped sharpen her observation.
Then, she would like to express her sincere appreciation and love to her parents for constant inspiration, guidance, unflagging love, and support throughout her life. She is indebted to her beloved father P. Lumbanbatu, S. Pd. for many discussions and his support, prayer, motivation, care and love. The great
(8)
thank to her beloved mother S. Sembiring, S. Pd. who always give her motivation, prayer and love. Next, she owes her thanks to her sister Iin Inneke Lumbanbatu, AMKeb. and Evlin Lumbanbatu and her younger brother Yuriko Lumbanbatu and Jhon Kelpin Lumbanbatu who support her to finish this program.
Special thanks are extended to all families who have permit her to conduct the research in their family and given their precious time to help her in collecting the data.
Last but not the least, her heartfelt thanks also go to her best friend Kak Eka, Kak Nova, Kak Canra, Kak Elvi, Mitha, Kak Febri Sinulingga, and Dian Silitonga for their encouragement, friendship and cooperation during the academic years and the completion of her thesis and also to all friends of intake IXX.
Finally, the writer realizes that this thesis is far from being perfect. Therefore, she highly appreciates all constructive critics for its improvement.
Medan, January 31st, 2012 The writer,
Ira Maria Fran Lumbanbatu Reg. Number: 8106111054
(9)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... i
ABSTRACT ... iii
THE LIST OF TABLES ... vii
THE LIST OF FIGURE ... viii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1The Background of the Study... 1
1.2The Problems of the Study... 4
1.3The Objectives of the Study... 5
1.4The Scope of the Study... 5
1.5The Significance of the Study... 5
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1Theoretical Framework... 7
2.2Language Policy... 8
2. 2. 1 Components of Language Policy of Speech Community...13
a. Language Ideology (Language Belief)... 13
b. Language Practice... 17
c. Language Management... 21
2.3Bilingual Family’s Language Policy... 24
2. 3. 1 Bilingual Family... 24
2. 3. 2 Family Language Policy... 27
(10)
2.4Children’s Words Production...... 32
2. 4. 1 Children and their Environment...32
2. 4. 2 Words Production of Children in Bilingual Family Environment... 34
2.5Previous Study ... 48
2.6Conceptual Framework ... 52
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1Research Design... 54
3.2The Location of the Study...54
3.3The Subject of the Study... 54
3.4The Technique of Collecting Data... 60
3.5The Instrument of Collecting Data... 60
3.6The Technique of Data Analysis...60
3.7The Trustworthiness of the Study... 61
3. 7. 1 Credibility... 61
3. 7. 2 Transferability... 62
3. 7. 3 Dependability... 62
3. 7. 4 Confirmability... 62
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS 4.1 Data Analysis...64
4. 1. 1 Process of Deciding Language Policy by Bilingual Family... 64
4. 1. 1. 1 Decision Result upon Language Policy Based on Language Ideology... 71
(11)
4. 1. 1. 2 Decision Result upon Language Policy Based on
Language Practice... 78
4. 1. 1. 3 Decision Result upon Language Policy Based on Language Management... 81
4. 1. 2 The Process of Applying Language Policy by Parents to Succedd Their Children Word’s Production...84
4. 1. 3 The Factors of Language Policy Use in Family... 88
4.2 Findings...91
4.3 Discussions...94
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1Conclusions...97
5.2Suggestions...97
(12)
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
Language is used by all communities for conveying many purposes that they have in their mind. When the communication happens in a society, some points that they need to consider are context, ability in speaking and meaning. Context is an appropriate situation where the communication takes place to enable language users put them selves in a good role when doing interaction in different context. Context covers suitable time, appropriate language, participant involve in the interaction and soon. Beside the context, the speaker should have skill of making communication in different way. When the context has been understood, the listeners can analyze the meaning that the speakers have expressed. Because meaning has had a part for making the language users understand each other. The three points above will decide weather the speakers have used their role well in their communities or not. That is why language and language users (speakers and listeners) are two things that support their function each other.
The discussion of language which is done automatically is focused on where the language users live or it is often called as community. A group of people who has communication generally is called as speech community. Speech community is a group of people who communicate each other. Fishman (1972: 22) says that ‘A speech community may be as small as a single closed interaction network, all of whose members regard each other in but a single capacity’. The speech community is a unity that completes their roles as the members of thes of
(13)
the community. Communities that are talking here are micro community and it still has connection with macro community. ‘The interaction between the micro and macro, between the local and the national, can operate in either direction. Language planning activities which begin at the local level can come to influence macro – level decision – making’ (Liddicoat and Baldauf, 2008: 3). Language users who live in community where many people come from different language background will use their home language. When the language users live together with other people of language users of course they practice or use more than one language. It can be bilingual community and multilingual community. But the reality found, it is often in Indonesia when the community consists of hundred, the combination of national language and tribal language will be used. This condition is usually named as Bilingual.
The smallest community where the bilingual live is family. In this kind of family, the language that family members use is as the family decision. Therefore it could be found in one family that a certain language is used at home but it is not used when they interact with the outsiders. This condition can be categorized as language planning within small community that is family. ‘If language planning is examined at the micro level of the individual family, then the issue becomes one of investigating the causes and conditions whereby an individual or an individual family changes, alters or modifies language within the home or in other domains’ (Laoire, 2005: 238).The first target of this policy is family’s descendant. In this case are children in the family.
Children learn language naturally. It means that they have learned language with or without guidance of people around them. Clark (2003: 8) stated
(14)
that ‘Children are setting up representations of what they see and know’. They have cared with what have happened around them, they study the language based on what they see and know after they hear some words. The language is naturally put in children’s mind due to the condition created by many people who are speaking actively in their environment.
Language policy that is discussed here are the part of language planning. According to Fishman (2006: 5), ‘Language planning is part of the total social change (social planning) process whether as cause and/ or as effect. The social change that is meant here is the changing of individual, local, regional and/ or national levels’. In this case the changing focuses on the language that is used by people that has planned by people who has planned it.
Spolsky (2004) has considered that there are three components of language policy available in speech community namely language belief, language practice and language management. Language belief is considered as the ideology of the language it self. It is about value and status of the language in a community. Then after the language users particularly the family have considered and decided the language, the family will start on how the language can be practiced in the family. The two points will be packaged as language management. In this part, the family will start to arrange language planning through language management.
In the family, language policy is conducted through kinship system. So, language used is decided by parents due to the benefit the family can gain. For the very young children, the process of acquiring and deciding language by the family
(15)
is popular as language acquisition. Language acquisition of children will depend on language policy that the parents have decided in the family.
Family in Indonesia consists of different ideology, different way of practicing the language and different way of managing language in their family. The success of children in using language can be decided by the way of their parents in making language policy in their family. In this case, the writer focuses on the way of parents as the good controller in their family particularly for their children’s language. As the fact in Indonesia that there are many languages precisely tribal language used by many tribes and it will result some confusions to parents to make progress of their children’s language through what they have believed in their ideology.
1.2 The Problems of the Study
Based on background above, the problems are formulated as the following.
1) How do bilingual families decide their own language policy through the components of language policy itself?
2) How do the parents apply language policy to succeed their children’s word production?
3) Why do the parents of family apply their language policy the way they are?
(16)
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
In line with the problems above, the objectives of this study are.
1. to identify how do bilingual families decide their own language policy through the components of language policy itself.
2. to identify how the parents apply language policy to succeed their children’s word production.
3. to identify why the parents use language policy the way they are.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
In this occasion, the writer discusses about family’s language policy towards children’s words production. The writer will focus on family’s language policy (language practices, language ideology and language management) implementation and the impacts of this policy towards words production of children of three to twelve years old.
1.5 The Significances of the Study
It is equated that valuable inputs can enrich the study on the development of language planning especially in language policy. It is hoped that the findings would have valuable contribution to the theoretical and practical aspects.
a. Theoretically, these findings can be made as guideline for families who are interested in the process of giving some policies in their family language. It will be also very useful for references in assisting or facilitating the members of family in the process of applying language policy in their family and for other language researchers who are interested in conducting
(17)
a more in – depth study on language policy, by comparing the results of this research, they can enrich the knowledge on language policy.
Practically, these findings will make the parents to be aware to consider a good language policy for their family. Although, it is often for a family to focus their language policy to their children, sometimes the parents also will make some mistakes to break language policy that they have made.
(18)
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusions
After deliberately analyzing the data, the conclusions are stated as follows:
1. Bilingual families have decided their own language policy through the components of language policy. Mostly parents considered language ideology and language management. Otherwise, language practice were not applied by them completely, it can be seen through language that their children use will be different with what the parents have expected.
2. Language policy is applied in the families by practicing the language directly. There are some influences that make the parents practice the language directly, namely: influences of outside home and there is no balance guidance of practicing language to children between mother and father in family.
3. Factors that support parents in conducting language policy are
intermarriage, maintaining the language particularly tribal language, the position of language using in formal context such as school and the position of language which is used in their environment.
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the conclusions stated above, this study has some suggestions to the readers, especially the parents as follows:
(19)
1. In relation to the findings in this study, it is suggested to the other researcher to use language components of language policy in speech community (Spolsky, 2004) in analyzing language policy since it can be used for macro and micro level of community. It is also suggested that the result will be different because the participants come from English Program and if it is applied to other participants the answer will be quite different.
2. It is suggested to parents:
a. In the family, where language ideology is considered. It is suggested that the parents consider the ideology based on the advantage of the language for children’s future.
b. In the family, when parents are practicing the language. It is suggested to use language that has been chosen through language ideology. It is useful for making children are not confuse and avoid them for using code – switching.
c. Parent is suggested to do other strategies of language management namely bringing the speaker of the target language into the household and arranging for young children to play with other children knowledge.
d. It is suggested that families should be aware of the language planning for family.
(20)
REFERENCES
Bhatia and Ritchie. The Handbook of Bilingualism. 2004. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
Brown and Ganguly. 2003. Fighting Words (Language Policy and Ethnic
Relations in Asia). Massachusetts: Harvard University Cambridge.
Cantone, F. Katja. Code – Switching in Bilingual Children. 2007. Netherlands: Springer.
Clark, Eve. First Language Acquisition. 2003. New York: Cambridge University Press
_____, Eve. First Language Acquisition. 2009. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, W. J. 2008. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and
Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Merrill Prentice Hall:
Ohio.
Fishman, Josua A. Do not Leave Your Language Alone. 2006. London: Lawren Erlbaum Associates.
_______, Joshua A. The Sociology of Language. 1969. United States: Newbury House Publisher.
Gleason, and Ratner. Psycholinguistics. 1998. United States: Harcourt Brace College Publisher.
Gratz, Jen. The Impact of Parents’ Background on their Children’s Education. 2006. United States: Public Education for Public Good.
Haque, Shahzaman. 2011. Migrants Family Language Practices and Language Policies in Finland. Journal of Applied Language Studies 5 (1), 49 – 64. Kayam, Orly. 2012. Family Language Policy of the English Speaking Immigrant
Community in Israel: Families with Young Children and their FLP Planning, Management, and Outcomes. International Journal of
Linguistics 4 (4), 662-635.
King, A. Kendall. 2008. Family Language Policy. Language and Linguistics
Compass 2 (5), 907 – 922.
King and Fogle. Bilingual Parenting as Good Parenting: Parents’ Perspective on
Family Language Policy for Additive Bilingualism. Washington:
(21)
Lee, Pei – Ying. 2009. Language Policy in Taiwan: Age as Factor of Second
Language Acquisition. Thesis of Master of Arts. Chico: California State
University.
Laoire, Ó Muiris. The Language Situation in Ireland. 2005. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Liddicoat, J. Antony. 2004. Language Policy and Methodology. International
Journal of English Studies 4 (1), 153-171.
Liddicoat and Baldauf. 2008. Language Planning in Local Context: Agents, Contexts and Interaction. MPG Books 1 (1), 3 - 17
Lincoln and Guba. Naturalistic Inquiry. 1985. Baverly Hills California: Sage Publication.
Luykx, Aurolyn. 2005. Children as Socializing Agents: Family Language Policy
in Situations of Language Shift. Thesis of Bachelor Degree. Miami:
University of Miami.
Ricento, Thomas. An Introduction to Language Policy. 2006. Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
Romaine, Suzanne. 2002. The Impact of Language Policy on Endangered Languages. International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS) 4 (2), 194 – 212.
Schiffman, Harold F. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. 1996. London: Routledge
Schwartz, Mila.2012. Immigrant Parents’ and Teachers’ views on Bilingual Preschool Language Policy. Language and Educations 5 (1), 1-22.
Scotton, Carol Myers. Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingual. 2006. Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
Simpson, Paul. Language, Ideology and Point of View. 1993. London: Routledge Spolsky and Shohamy, The Languages of Israel Policy, Ideology and Practice.
1999. Great Britain: The Cromwell Press.
Spolsky, B. Language Policy. 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
_______, B. Language Management. 2009. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
_______, B. Language Policy. 2005. Sommerville: Proceeding of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism.
(22)
Thompson, Neil. Communication and Language. 2003. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Montgomery, Heather. An Introduction to Childhood. 2009. United Kingdom: Wiley – Blackwell.
Mukhuba, Thisaphungo Theophilus. 2003. Bilingualism, Language Attitudes, Language Policy and Language Planning: A Sociolinguistic Perspective.
Journal of Linguistics 3 (2), 268 – 278.
Noddings, Nel. Critical Lessons (What Our Schools Should Teach). 2006. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Paauw, Scott. 2009. One Land, One Nation, One Language: An Analysis of Indonesia’s National Language Policy. University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Science 5 (1), 2-16.
Patten, Alan. 2001. Political Theory and Language Policy. Sage Publications 29 (5), 691- 715.
Plüddemann, and friends. Language Policy Implementation and Language Vitality
in Western Cape Primary School. 2004. Cape Town: PRAESA.
Poon, Y. K. Anita. 2004. Language Policy of Hong Kong: It’s Impact on Language Education and Language Use in Post – Handover Hongkong.
Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Humanities And Social Science 49
(1), 53-74
Sukumane, B. G. Joyce. 2000. Issues in Language Policy and Planning: The Case of Namibia. Studies in the Linguistics Sciences 30 (2), 1- 10.
Liddicoat, Antony J. Language Policy and Methodology. Nathan: Universidad de Murcia.
Viljamaa, Sanna – Kaisa. Constructing Family Language Policy: A Case – study Bilingual Family Language Policy. 2012. Thesis of Bachelor Degree.
Finland: University of Jyvaskyla Department of Languages English. Yin, R. K. 1984. Case study research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Young, E. Michael. Language Development Chart. 2008. USA: Child Development Institute. Retrieved from childdevelopmentinfo.com/child-development/language_development.shtml
(1)
a more in – depth study on language policy, by comparing the results of this research, they can enrich the knowledge on language policy.
Practically, these findings will make the parents to be aware to consider a good language policy for their family. Although, it is often for a family to focus their language policy to their children, sometimes the parents also will make some mistakes to break language policy that they have made.
(2)
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusions
After deliberately analyzing the data, the conclusions are stated as follows:
1. Bilingual families have decided their own language policy through the components of language policy. Mostly parents considered language ideology and language management. Otherwise, language practice were not applied by them completely, it can be seen through language that their children use will be different with what the parents have expected.
2. Language policy is applied in the families by practicing the language directly. There are some influences that make the parents practice the language directly, namely: influences of outside home and there is no balance guidance of practicing language to children between mother and father in family.
3. Factors that support parents in conducting language policy are intermarriage, maintaining the language particularly tribal language, the position of language using in formal context such as school and the position of language which is used in their environment.
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the conclusions stated above, this study has some suggestions to the readers, especially the parents as follows:
(3)
1. In relation to the findings in this study, it is suggested to the other researcher to use language components of language policy in speech community (Spolsky, 2004) in analyzing language policy since it can be used for macro and micro level of community. It is also suggested that the result will be different because the participants come from English Program and if it is applied to other participants the answer will be quite different.
2. It is suggested to parents:
a. In the family, where language ideology is considered. It is suggested that the parents consider the ideology based on the advantage of the language for children’s future.
b. In the family, when parents are practicing the language. It is suggested to use language that has been chosen through language ideology. It is useful for making children are not confuse and avoid them for using code – switching.
c. Parent is suggested to do other strategies of language management namely bringing the speaker of the target language into the household and arranging for young children to play with other children knowledge.
d. It is suggested that families should be aware of the language planning for family.
(4)
REFERENCES
Bhatia and Ritchie. The Handbook of Bilingualism. 2004. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
Brown and Ganguly. 2003. Fighting Words (Language Policy and Ethnic Relations in Asia). Massachusetts: Harvard University Cambridge.
Cantone, F. Katja. Code – Switching in Bilingual Children. 2007. Netherlands: Springer.
Clark, Eve. First Language Acquisition. 2003. New York: Cambridge University Press
_____, Eve. First Language Acquisition. 2009. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, W. J. 2008. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Merrill Prentice Hall: Ohio.
Fishman, Josua A. Do not Leave Your Language Alone. 2006. London: Lawren Erlbaum Associates.
_______, Joshua A. The Sociology of Language. 1969. United States: Newbury House Publisher.
Gleason, and Ratner. Psycholinguistics. 1998. United States: Harcourt Brace College Publisher.
Gratz, Jen. The Impact of Parents’ Background on their Children’s Education. 2006. United States: Public Education for Public Good.
Haque, Shahzaman. 2011. Migrants Family Language Practices and Language Policies in Finland. Journal of Applied Language Studies 5 (1), 49 – 64. Kayam, Orly. 2012. Family Language Policy of the English Speaking Immigrant
Community in Israel: Families with Young Children and their FLP Planning, Management, and Outcomes. International Journal of Linguistics 4 (4), 662-635.
King, A. Kendall. 2008. Family Language Policy. Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (5), 907 – 922.
King and Fogle. Bilingual Parenting as Good Parenting: Parents’ Perspective on Family Language Policy for Additive Bilingualism. Washington: Georgetown University.
(5)
Lee, Pei – Ying. 2009. Language Policy in Taiwan: Age as Factor of Second Language Acquisition. Thesis of Master of Arts. Chico: California State University.
Laoire, Ó Muiris. The Language Situation in Ireland. 2005. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Liddicoat, J. Antony. 2004. Language Policy and Methodology. International Journal of English Studies 4 (1), 153-171.
Liddicoat and Baldauf. 2008. Language Planning in Local Context: Agents, Contexts and Interaction. MPG Books 1 (1), 3 - 17
Lincoln and Guba. Naturalistic Inquiry. 1985. Baverly Hills California: Sage Publication.
Luykx, Aurolyn. 2005. Children as Socializing Agents: Family Language Policy in Situations of Language Shift. Thesis of Bachelor Degree. Miami: University of Miami.
Ricento, Thomas. An Introduction to Language Policy. 2006. Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
Romaine, Suzanne. 2002. The Impact of Language Policy on Endangered Languages. International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS) 4 (2), 194 – 212.
Schiffman, Harold F. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. 1996. London: Routledge
Schwartz, Mila.2012. Immigrant Parents’ and Teachers’ views on Bilingual Preschool Language Policy. Language and Educations 5 (1), 1-22.
Scotton, Carol Myers. Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingual. 2006. Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
Simpson, Paul. Language, Ideology and Point of View. 1993. London: Routledge Spolsky and Shohamy, The Languages of Israel Policy, Ideology and Practice.
1999. Great Britain: The Cromwell Press.
Spolsky, B. Language Policy. 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
_______, B. Language Management. 2009. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
_______, B. Language Policy. 2005. Sommerville: Proceeding of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism.
(6)
Thompson, Neil. Communication and Language. 2003. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Montgomery, Heather. An Introduction to Childhood. 2009. United Kingdom: Wiley – Blackwell.
Mukhuba, Thisaphungo Theophilus. 2003. Bilingualism, Language Attitudes, Language Policy and Language Planning: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Journal of Linguistics 3 (2), 268 – 278.
Noddings, Nel. Critical Lessons (What Our Schools Should Teach). 2006. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Paauw, Scott. 2009. One Land, One Nation, One Language: An Analysis of
Indonesia’s National Language Policy. University of Rochester Working
Papers in the Language Science 5 (1), 2-16.
Patten, Alan. 2001. Political Theory and Language Policy. Sage Publications 29 (5), 691- 715.
Plüddemann, and friends. Language Policy Implementation and Language Vitality in Western Cape Primary School. 2004. Cape Town: PRAESA.
Poon, Y. K. Anita. 2004. Language Policy of Hong Kong: It’s Impact on Language Education and Language Use in Post – Handover Hongkong. Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Humanities And Social Science 49 (1), 53-74
Sukumane, B. G. Joyce. 2000. Issues in Language Policy and Planning: The Case of Namibia. Studies in the Linguistics Sciences 30 (2), 1- 10.
Liddicoat, Antony J. Language Policy and Methodology. Nathan: Universidad de Murcia.
Viljamaa, Sanna – Kaisa. Constructing Family Language Policy: A Case – study Bilingual Family Language Policy. 2012. Thesis of Bachelor Degree. Finland: University of Jyvaskyla Department of Languages English. Yin, R. K. 1984. Case study research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Young, E. Michael. Language Development Chart. 2008. USA: Child Development Institute. Retrieved from childdevelopmentinfo.com/child-development/language_development.shtml