See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254241694

Family language policies among Albanian immigrants in Greece

Article  in  International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism · January 2012

DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2012.709817

CITATIONS READS
20 128

2 authors:

Aspasia Chatzidaki Maligkoudi Christina

University of Crete Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
21 PUBLICATIONS   60 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Greek-Language Intercultural Education Abroad (2011-2014) View project

BALED Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aspasia Chatzidaki on 20 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Christina Maligkoudi]
On: 25 August 2012, At: 07:20
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Bilingual

Education and Bilingualism
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

Family language policies among

Albanian immigrants in Greece
a a
Aspassia Chatzidaki & Christina Maligkoudi
a
Department of Primary Education, University of Crete,
Rethymnon, Greece

Version of record first published: 21 Aug 2012

To cite this article: Aspassia Chatzidaki & Christina Maligkoudi (2012): Family language
policies among Albanian immigrants in Greece, International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, DOI:10.1080/13670050.2012.709817

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.709817

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
2012, 1
15, iFirst article

Family language policies among Albanian immigrants in Greece

Aspassia Chatzidaki* and Christina Maligkoudi

Department of Primary Education, University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece

(Received 28 October 2011; final version received 2 July 2012)

This article reports on an investigation of family language policies among 37

Albanian immigrant families in Northern Greece within the framework of
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

Spolsky’s language policy model. Data collection was based on semi-directed

interviews with parents which were analysed using both content and discourse
analysis. According to our findings, three groups of families were observed in our
sample. A small number of families (n 4) did not transmit the ethnic language to
their children and showed no interest in maintaining ties with the homeland. In
another group of families (n 12) positive attitudes towards ethnic language
maintenance were accompanied by specific language management efforts and
language practices in support of the ethnic language. However, the majority of
our informants (n 21) did not engage in such efforts, even though they, too,
expressed positive attitudes towards Albanian language maintenance. We argue
that although most immigrant parents may share positive attitudes towards ethnic
language maintenance, they may differ as to whether they embrace bilingualism
as an asset or accept the dominant ideology according to which the simultaneous
development of two languages may hinder the development of the majority
language.
Keywords: language policy; language ideologies; language maintenance; Albanian;
Greek

Introduction
In immigrant contexts, the minority language is usually confined to a few, intimate
domains (Fishman 1965/2007) such as the home and friendship networks. As a result,
it lacks ‘powerful’ functions such as employment, higher education, mass media and
government (Fishman 2001). In the absence of institutions providing mother-tongue
education, the burden of securing language maintenance falls upon the families.
Their role is all the more important, as without a secure place for the ethnic language
in the family repertoire, not even mother-tongue education can ensure its future
(Edwards 2004; Fishman 1991, 2001). In other words, intergenerational language
transmission at home emerges as a crucial factor for language maintenance, that is,
for the continued use of a minority language alongside the majority language in some
or all spheres of life (Pauwels 2004, 719).
This article reports on an ethnographic study of 37 families of Albanian
immigrants living in the north of Greece and their language policies with regard
to ethnic language maintenance. Albanian immigrants constitute a rather under-
studied ethnic group in terms of their stance towards language maintenance and shift

*Corresponding author. Email: aspahatz@edc.uoc.gr

ISSN 1367-0050 print/ISSN 1747-7522 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.709817
http://www.tandfonline.com
 2 A. Chatzidaki and C. Maligkoudi

worldwide. Even in Greece, despite the sociolinguists’ recent interest in the Albanian
immigrant group (Chatzidaki 2005; Gogonas 2007, 2009; Michail and Kesko 2009),
the issue of language maintenance has not so far been approached from the
perspective of family language policies. Our study attempts to describe the diverse
family language policies encountered in this particular group, and in particular to
highlight the links between language ideologies and actual language practices in the
family context.

Family language policy

The issues surrounding immigrant families’ language practices and their relationship
to language maintenance have been extensively studied in the last decades. In recent
years, the investigation of such issues has been undertaken within the Language
Policy framework, which incorporates the investigation of parents’ language
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

attitudes and beliefs as well as their actual practices.

Curdt-Christiansen defines family language policy ‘as a deliberate attempt at
practicing a particular language use pattern and particular literacy practices within
home domains and among family members’ (2009, 352). It involves the investigation
not only of the families’ actual linguistic practices, but also the unveiling of the subtle
influences exercised by external factors such as the socio-political context and the
parents’ own background which shape language choice within the family through the
formation of ‘language ideologies’ reproduced through majority and minority
speakers’ discourse (Curdt-Christiansen 2009; Lanza 2007).
Bernard Spolsky (2004) proposes a model on language policy, according to which
language policy at the family level is comprised of the following three components:

(1) Language ideologies and beliefs, that is the speakers’ views on the aesthetic,
symbolic and economic value of the majority and the minority language, as
well as those of their versions spoken by the immigrants and their children,
the appropriateness of using the one or the other in public or at home, the
significance of minority language maintenance, etc. (Spolsky 2004, 5).
(2) Language practices, which involve frequency of use of the minority and the
majority language at home and possibly patterns of language choice among
family members to account for the effect of factors such as proficiency and
desire to accommodate their interlocutors’ preference (Spolsky 2004, 43).
(3) Language management, which refers to parents’ direct efforts to manipulate
the linguistic situation, for instance, by trying to persuade their children to
speak/learn one or the other language (Spolsky 2004, 8).

The three components of family language policy are strongly interrelated; language
practices are influenced by ideologies and sometimes lead to language management.
Research in language attitudes has shown that the mere expression of positive
attitudes towards minority language maintenance does not suggest the informants’
commitment to measures guaranteeing it (Baker 1992). Moreover, language
ideologies are shaped by various factors, such as (1) the majority community’s
policies on minority language learning (Portes and Hao 1998; Spolsky 2012), (2) the
dominant discourse on bilingualism promoted by official and unofficial sources such
as the media (Curdt-Christiansen 2009; King and Fogle 2006), (3) the potential
benefits of bilingualism (Edwards 2004) and (4) parental expectations, which refer to
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 3

‘the beliefs and goals that parents have for their children’s multilingual development
and educational outcomes’ and are, in their turn, shaped by their own sociocultural
and educational background and experiences (Curdt-Christiansen 2009, 356; Kirsch
2012) among other factors. If parents shape their ideologies under the influence of
multiple internal and external factors, one expects that there will be different patterns
of evaluation of the importance of the minority language within the same ethnic
group of immigrants in the same host country, for instance. If the dominant ideology
promotes fast assimilation including monolingualism in the majority language, some
parents may choose to abandon the ethnic language altogether. Others may plan to
return to the country of origin soon, or may choose to live in ghetto-like conditions,
if the circumstances allow it. As a result, they may impose on their families to
communicate only in the first language and refuse any contact with the majority
language. What happens, however, to the large numbers of immigrant families who
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

are torn between their wish to settle down to a new country and integrate successfully
and their desire to maintain their identity and their language?
The variety and the complexity of factors which influence the formation of
language beliefs and ideologies, and in turn, the immigrant parents’ practices, leave
ample room for individual responses to the same pressures exercised by the majority
society and educational system. As a result, we expect to see that parents with similar
language ideologies may opt for different language practices and parents with similar
language practices may not always engage into language management.
The notion of language management, in our study, has a particular content, which
finds its justification in language maintenance/shift research in various communities
all over the world. A number of researchers have identified various strategies and
practices which are supposed to contribute to ethnic language maintenance. These are:
(1) making available media and print in the ethnic language (Borland 2006; Clyne
1991; Wright and Kurtoğlu-Hooton 2006; Yağmur and Akinci 2003); (2) ensuring
contact with same-language speakers via the Internet (Borland 2006; Clyne 1991;
Yağmur and Akinci 2003); (3) frequent visits to the country of origin (Clyne 1991; Luo
and Wiseman 2000; Pauwels 2005; Wright and Kurtoğlu-Hooton 2006), etc.
On the other hand, it seems that none of the above-mentioned practices in
isolation can promote a satisfactory command of the minority language unless they
are accompanied by sustained language use and literacy development (Schwartz
2008). Moreover, other studies stress the importance of parental input for language
maintenance (De Houwer 2007) and identify as successful parental strategies for
community language maintenance practices which focus on informal language
teaching such as: (1) persistence of use, (2) consistency in language usage and (3)
parental use of teaching/learning techniques such as modelling, rehearsing, elicita-
tion and word games (Pauwels 2005, 128).
Based on the above, we decided to consider media provision in the ethnic
language and visits to the home country as ‘weak’ forms of language management, at
best, because they do not yield sufficient benefits in terms of ethnic language
proficiency. In this study we consider as language management: (1) the establishment
of a home environment where the ethnic language is the unmarked, legitimate and
predominant code of communication between all family members, (2) the imple-
mentation of literacy practices at home and/or (3) the attendance of mother tongue
courses to supplement whatever ethnic language development takes place at home.
The second and the third condition may apply simultaneously or in alternation.
 4 A. Chatzidaki and C. Maligkoudi

The Greek educational context and immigration

Mass immigration into Greece started in the early 1990s. Albanians constitute the
largest ethnic group among immigrants amounting to 57.5% of the registered
immigrant population according to the 2001 census (Lyberaki and Maroukis 2005)
as they number more than 400,000 people.1 The school population has changed
dramatically with the arrival of children from neighbouring Balkan countries,
countries of the former Soviet Union and to a lesser extent from the Middle East,
Africa and Asia. According to official figures from the Greek Ministry of Education,
in 2004
2005 students born to foreign and ‘repatriated’ Greek parents constituted
about 10% of the total Greek school population. Of these students the majority are
of Albanian origin; in 2002
2003, 72% of the migrant pupils in Greek schools were
Albanian nationals (Gotovos and Markou 2004). According to most recently
available data (Revythiadou 2012), the percentage of students of Albanian back-
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

ground has increased to 77.6% in the 2010
2011 school years.

The Greek educational system has been criticised for promoting ethnocentrism
and conformity with monolingual norms (Frangoudaki and Dragonas 1997). The
Law 2413/96 on Intercultural Education has not ensured the kind of policies that
would permeate the whole educational system, enhancing students’ awareness and
acceptance of cultural diversity among them (Damanakis 1997; Mitakidou, Tressou,
and Daniilidou 2007). Educational provisions for immigrant children include mainly
the teaching of Greek as a second language in Reception or Support classes
(Dimakos and Tasiopoulou 2003; Mitakidou, Tressou, and Daniilidou 2007).
Although the law provides for the establishment of classes where immigrant
pupils would be taught the language and culture of their country of origin as part of
their school curriculum, in practice this measure has never been implemented.2
Minority children’s bilingualism remains largely ‘invisible’ (Gkaintartzi and Tsoka-
lidou 2011; Tsokalidou 2005). In fact, according to several studies (Gogonas 2007;
Mitakidou and Daniilidou 2007; Skourtou 2002), Greek teachers tend to advise
parents to speak only Greek at home in order not to ‘confuse’ the child. Such
practices are not dictated by any official policy documents; they are based on the
teachers’ belief that the first language interferes with and hinders the learning of the
second language, especially when referring to languages of low socio-economic
groups. Therefore, the predominant view, even if it is not always explicitly expressed
among teachers, is that the immigrant children’s home language(s) is/are more of a
burden or an obstacle which should be overcome rather than an asset which should
be cherished and cultivated.
All in all, Greece is rather a ‘subtractive’ (Baker 2006) context for bilingualism in
minority languages. The overarching ideology of the social and the educational
context promotes conformity with monolingual norms and Greek cultural ideals. In
such conditions, claiming a different ethnic and cultural identity is an option which
demands a high price to pay.

The present study

Aims
The findings reported here originate from a broader ethnographic study which took
place between 2006 and 2007 in three different areas in Northern Greece. On the one
hand, it involved Albanian immigrant families and teachers, and, on the other, Greek
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 5

teachers and educational authorities, and aimed at investigating views and practices
regarding the education of Albanian-origin children in Greece (Maligkoudi 2010).
The purpose of this article is to report on a specific part of the study, namely
Albanian parents’ language policies with regard to their children’s bilingual
development. On the basis of our theoretical framework, we formulated the aims
of our investigation in the following way:

(1) What are the parents’ language ideologies and beliefs with regard to the
ethnic and the majority language? What values do they assign to each one?
(2) What are the families’ language practices, that is what languages are used
between family members and how is the children’s proficiency in the ethnic
language related to its use?
(3) What is the extent of language management in these families, that is do
parents use strategies and practices which promote ethnic language main-
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

tenance?

Combining data from these three areas, we hoped to arrive at a classification of

parents regarding their family language policies in relation to ethnic language
maintenance.

Participants
The research site was the region of Central Macedonia, which is the second
prefecture in Greece (after Attiki, where the capital of Athens is located) in terms of
numbers of Albanian immigrants who have applied for a legal permit (Labrianidis
and Lyberaki 2005, 165). In Central Macedonia one also finds the second highest
percentage of Albanian pupils in Greece (10.7 of the total, according to figures
provided by the Institute for Intercultural Education, cf. Gotovos and Markou
2004).
Specifically, within the region of Central Macedonia, we chose to conduct our
research in three different counties (Thessaloniki, Serres, and Pieria) which vary with
regard to the percentage of Albanian inhabitants and pupils. Both the counties of
Serres and Pieria are mainly agricultural; the first has a low percentage (1.35%) of
Albanian pupils, however, while the second has a higher one (3.9%). Thessaloniki is a
different situation as it is the second largest city in Greece with a population of more
than one million. We chose subjects from two different parts of the city, again on the
basis of immigrant concentration: West Thessaloniki has a higher percentage of
immigrant population and/or inhabitants of low socio-economic status in contrast
with East Thessaloniki (Labrianidis and Lyberaki 2005, 228).
As our study was a qualitative one, we opted for a rather small sample (a total of
37 families), choosing our participants on the basis of certain criteria: they had to
have at least one child who attended primary school at the time of the study, to
belong to households where both parents lived together in Greece, and to have a
minimum of 5 years of residence in Greece. Nineteen families from the Thessaloniki
area and nine from each of the two prefectures constituted our final sample.
The children whom we asked the parents to provide information on had to be
Primary school pupils (between the ages of 6 and 12). The average age of the 49
children who were the focus of our study was nine.
 6 A. Chatzidaki and C. Maligkoudi

With regard to our participants’ educational background and occupational

status, quite a few of them had graduated from higher education institutions and
used to do white-collar jobs in Albania. However, in most cases men used to be
workers and farmers, while in Greece they were employed as builders, mechanics,
technicians or agricultural workers. Among the women, 14 worked as cleaning staff,
11 worked as shop assistants or helped their husbands and 12 stayed at home.
The average length of stay in Greece in our sample was 9 years with a maximum
of 20 years. The majority of the families came to Greece in the beginning of the
1990s, when the communist regime in Albania collapsed. With regard to their plans
for returning to the country of origin, some of them did suggest that they think about
it, while others rejected such a notion.
Finally, it should be pointed out that parents claimed to speak and understand
oral Greek very well, something which was largely to be expected given the length of
time they had spent in Greece. However, only a few reported to have developed
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

literacy skills either by helping their children with homework or through reading
subtitles on TV. No one had attended any courses in Greek. Among mothers, there
were two who did not speak any Greek at all, but in the rest of the cases, proficiency
was not an issue.
On the other hand, all parents considered their children’s proficiency in Greek to
be very good, contrary to what was the case with regard to proficiency in the ethnic
language.

Data collection
Participants were contacted via the school principals in the designated research areas.
In case a family agreed to participate in the study, further arrangements were made
for an interview, preferably with both parents present. The interviews took place in
the participants’ homes or in a few cases in coffee shops, if the informants preferred
it. Nearly all interviews were conducted in Greek, as the researcher’s competence in
Albanian was not sufficient to allow her to carry out a whole interview in this
language. The choice of language proved not to be a problem with the exception of
two mothers whose knowledge of Greek was so limited that the father or a child
acted as an interpreter. All interviews took place between October 2006 and May
2007 and add up to a total of 30 hours, as they lasted between 30 and 60 minutes
approximately.
The semi-directed interview covered the following topics: the participants’
linguistic, educational and professional profile, length of residence in Greece,
languages spoken at home, the reported importance of maintaining the ethnic
language, actual language maintenance practices and strategies, their opinions
about language policies regarding their children, and expectations and aspirations
for their children’s educational and social future.
The first method used to extract information from the interview data was content
analysis (Krippendorff 2004; Mayring 2000): predetermined categories based on the
topics of inquiry were set and the participants’ answers were placed under the
corresponding headings. Following this, the subjects’ discourse on particular issues
was analysed further as we sought more ‘perspective’ information, that is ‘subjects’
understandings of the value and meanings of their bilingual speech practices’ (Codó
2008, 161). The emphasis on the analysis reported here was on understanding
parental language policies and the factors which shape them.
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7

Presentation and discussion of findings

In this section we shall attempt to present our findings and discuss them at the same
time with reference to our theoretical framework. On the basis of subjects’ accounts,
we distinguished between three separate groups of families
Groups A, B and C

which, in our view, display distinct patterns of family language policy. In these
families, parents demonstrate a complex interplay between language beliefs and
practices, which leads them to adopt different routes. In what follows we discuss the
parents’ attitudes towards the two languages in the family repertoire and the values
they attach to them, as well as their response to the dilemma they face with regard to
ethnic language development.

Group C parents
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

In four cases, parents are indifferent as to ethnic language maintenance and claim to
have abandoned the use of Albanian completely or to speak it only with their spouse.
They consider the ethnic language useless under their present life circumstances and
place emphasis only on their children’s satisfactory command of Greek:

I make sure that my children speak Greek and make progress in Greek. At school, at the
university, wherever they want to go. Wherever they want to go, they should go. I am
not stopping them. If they want Greek, let them have Greek. He doesn’t want Albanian,
so what? It’s fine by me. I want them to make progress in Greek. I am not stopping
them. That’s it. [ That’s my duty] As a father. (Parent no. 37, Group C, 123
128)

For the four families in this group, successful integration into the host society and
better work prospects translate into the complete abandonment of the ethnic
language and the severing of ties with the country of origin.
The remaining 33 parents belong to Groups A (n 21 parents) and B (n12).
They share a number of features, mainly on the level of language ideologies, but do
differ on the level of practices and management. We begin by pointing out the
similarities between the groups and then we proceed by examining their differences.

Similarities between Groups A and B

First of all, parents in both groups care deeply about their children’s mastery of
Greek and academic achievement. They hold high aspirations for their children’s
educational and professional future and are aware of the majority language’s
importance in this respect:

They came to Greece, they have to learn Greek. If they don’t learn it, they’ll leave, what’s
left for them to do? Why stay? They will learn it well. Stella will become a dentist.
(Parent no. 8, Group A, 46
47)

We want them to speak Greek very well, because we want them to go to the University
here, to understand it better. (Parent no. 14, Group B, 238
239)

Parents in all groups report being actively involved in the child’s education; they
supervise homework and often visit the school to consult with their children’s
teachers. This finding is in line with previous research among Albanian parents in
Greece, according to which they show a strong interest in their children’s academic
 8 A. Chatzidaki and C. Maligkoudi

achievement (Chatzidaki 2005, 2007; Gogonas 2007; Michail and Kesko 2009) and
value Greek as an instrument of social integration and personal development and
success (Kyriazis and Chatzidaki 2005).
A second feature parents in both groups share refers to their professed interest in
maintaining the Albanian language. The reasons participants offered regarding its
importance range from valuing Albanian as a symbolic or real link to their heritage
and family to more pragmatic considerations (cf. also Kyriazis and Chatzidaki 2005
for similar findings):

Wherever we go, we are who we are. We are Albanians and proud of that, just like
anyone else. You got that? That’s why we shouldn’t forget it. (Parent no. 18, Group B,
252
253)

If we speak only Greek to him, he won’t learn it, he will never be able to communicate
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

with his grandparents. (Parent no. 9, Group B, 43
44)

We don’t want to forget our language because one day we’ll go back. As soon as our
house over there is finished. (Parent no. 19, Group A, 58
59, 62)

I want my children to know Greek, to be able to read and write in Albanian, and to
know English, too. That’s more like it, [it’s good] to know all languages. (Parent no. 16,
Group A, 110
112)

Finally, a third point which parents in both groups seem to agree on is the lack of
legitimacy of Albanian language use in public. The issue came up in a number of
interviews, in which it appeared that parents from both groups refrain from using the
ethnic language in public as they consider it an insult towards the host society:

But in shops, when there are people around, no [ we don’t speak Albanian]. When you
go to have a pizza and there are people around, Greeks, it’s Greek. When you’re alone,
it’s mostly Albanian. Because we live here and we can’t stand out. Even if there is a
single person next to us, it’s Greek. It’s a shame to speak . . . it’s as if you wanted to
insult the other person. (Parent no. 12, Group A, 77
82)

But when we go out, we shall speak Greek, out of respect, because we don’t want others
to think that . . .. We speak Greek to him, so that he learns that outside the home he has
to speak Greek. (Parent no. 9, Group B, 60
63)

It has also been observed that even parents who do not initiate this behaviour often
comply with the child’s wish to use only Greek in public:

But when we walk in the street with the older one, she wants Greek! [laughs]. ‘Mum,
Greek!’. I say ‘Why? There’s nothing wrong [with speaking Albanian]!’. ‘No, speak
Greek!’ [laughs]. ‘All right’. (Parent no. 30, Group A, 85
86)

By acquiescing to their children’s wish to hide their linguistic identity, such parents
reinforce the dominant perception of Albanian as a stigmatised variety or at least as
a code of limited use, perhaps without even realising it. Moreover, they accept as a
natural fact the banishment of Albanian from the public arena among the children,
even when the latter are in the company of Albanian-background peers:

They can’t [ speak Albanian] because the other kids tell them ‘What are you talking
about? What are you saying about me? You see? So, they have to [ speak Greek].
(Parent no. 30, Group A, 75
76)
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9

And with his Albanian friends they speak Greek, how could it be any different? (Parent
no. 8, Group A, 89
90)

The reference to how parents react to the stigmatisation of Albanian provides a

useful link with the second part of our presentation. There we discuss the differences
observed in the ways parents respond to the same ideological pressures exercised by
the society through the media and teachers’ discourse with regard to their children’s
right to develop bilingualism. As we shall see, despite a number of similarities in the
families’ practices, there are distinct differences regarding both language use and
ethnic language maintenance efforts. Such differences led us to conclude that we are
dealing with two different types of parents: those who actively support ethnic
language maintenance by engaging into language management and those who limit
themselves to the expression of wishful thinking.
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

Differences between Groups A and B

Parents belonging to Group A reported speaking mainly Albanian to each other and
addressing their children in the same language quite often. However, according to
their own accounts, their children had limited proficiency in the ethnic language,
basic vocabulary and mainly oral skills. As a result, the children preferred using
mainly Greek both with parents and other older relatives, something to which
parents did not object. Needless to say, the children’s preferred code of commu-
nication with siblings and peers of an Albanian background was Greek, a well-
documented trend in the literature (e.g. Clyne 1991; Gogonas 2009, Namei 2008;
Pauwels 2005; Tannenbaum 2003; Yağmur and Akinci 2003).
With regard to their own language use at home, some parents admitted that it
was not as frequent as it should be in order to establish an Albanian-speaking home
environment (cf. Gogonas 2007 for similar observations). The habit of speaking
Greek outside the home and the children’s preference for it seemed to outweigh the
parents’ desire to use the ethnic language more often.
At the same time, there is evidence that parents in Group A have internalised the
‘muddled myths’ (Baker 1995, 41) about bilingualism reproduced by school
discourse, according to which the simultaneous development of the child’s other
language impedes the development of the majority one:

If I say this in Albanian, they will have difficulties at school. (Parent no. 16, Group A,
41
44)

A few parents in this group even claimed to have postponed the systematic teaching
of Albanian in order not to interfere with the teaching of Greek:

I can’t do this to the child, because I will confuse her. The child will get confused with a
second language. She is in the second grade now and has to learn to read your language
well, to write well, I think it will confuse her if she tries to learn both of them. (Parent
no. 10, Group A, 41
44)

On the whole, Group A parents seemed more in line with the dominant ideology
which gives absolute priority to the Greek language and leaves little room for the
development of the minority languages. They wish their children to develop
Albanian language skills but only in as far as this does not jeopardise their
 10 A. Chatzidaki and C. Maligkoudi

acquisition of Greek. Those few parents who actually claimed to take measures in
support of ethnic language maintenance mentioned frequent visits to the home
country, access to Albanian-language media at home, such as satellite TV or DVDs
and music, or even the use of computer multimedia to stir up some interest in the
Albanian language among their children. Such practices arguably have some positive
effect as they enhance the children’s contact with the Albanian language. However,
they do not satisfy our conceptualisation of language management as they do not
ensure literacy acquisition or sustained meaningful use of the ethnic language in the
home domain, and do not result in satisfactory competence in this language.
A different picture emerges from the analysis of Group B’s practices; those 12
families exhibit a remarkable tenacity with regard to ethnic language use, as parents
insist strongly on the use of Albanian at home by their children:

I don’t use Greek at home at all. The child will learn Greek outside [the home] anyway.
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

To anyone inside my house, I speak Albanian, I don’t speak Greek. (Parent no. 11,
Group B, 59
60)

I personally, I may sound strict, but, personally, it’s not exactly forbidden but, if I ask
my child something in Albanian, there’s no way I’ll let him answer back in Greek, no
way. (Parent no. 36, Group B, 54
57)

As was to be expected, the children in these families did use some Greek at home,
especially with their siblings. On the whole, however, they were reported to comply
with the parents’ wish and used almost always Albanian with older relatives. It
should be noted that in some cases the use of Albanian was dictated by the fact that a
mother or a grandmother had limited or no knowledge of Greek whatsoever.
Besides the insistence on using the ethnic language, the parents in this group
employed various strategies in order to enhance the children’s contact with the
language; these varied from frequent visits to Albania and social gatherings with
relatives and friends to the use of Albanian-language media. Apart from them,
however, Group B parents consciously pursued the development of literacy in
Albanian. To this end, they used educational material brought from the country of
origin, such as readers, story books, fairy tales, etc. The sustained use of Albanian as
well as the other language maintenance strategies and, in particular, their efforts to
teach the language systematically had resulted to a quite satisfactory command of
the ethnic language, according to the informants.
Based on the above, we contended that these families actually did engage in
language management, as they made specific efforts to counterbalance the
dominance of the Greek language outside the home domain by promoting the
development of oral and literacy skills in the ethnic language.

Conclusion
In this article we have tried to show how parents who share language attitudes
regarding the importance of ethnic language maintenance are nevertheless influenced
to different degree by the dominant ideology, and as a result, exhibit different
language practices. As parents’ language ideologies function as the driving force of
family language policy (Curdt-Christiansen 2009, 354), we suggest a taxonomy of
parents’ behaviours which can be interpreted as and lead to specific and distinct
family policies.
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 11

With the exception of 4 out of the 37 parents in our sample, who have abandoned
the ethnic language and culture in search of faster integration and future social
mobility, the rest of our informants offered plenty of reasons for its maintenance
either symbolic/integrative or pragmatic/utilitarian (cf. also Gogonas 2007; Kyriazis
and Chatzidaki 2005). Nonetheless, the professed attachment to Albanian does not
carry the same weight with all parents. Although the 21 parents in Group A express
positive attitudes towards ethnic language maintenance, they do not engage in
specific efforts to maintain or to develop it. At home, they use Albanian to a
moderate degree, as they usually accommodate to their children’s preference for
Greek. In this way, they consent to the invasion of the majority language into the
‘home’ domain, the last bastion of ethnic language use (Fishman 1965, 2001), paving
thus the way for language shift (Namei 2008; Spolsky 2004). At the same time, they
seem to neglect or postpone for the future Albanian literacy development; however,
the importance of acquiring literacy skills in the minority language as well as the
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

impact of systematic efforts to enrich the child’s repertoire in it cannot be

overestimated (De Houwer 2007; Pauwels 2005; Schwartz 2008).
With regard to the role which parental aspirations (Curdt-Christiansen 2009) had
in shaping their practices, one observes that all parents have high expectations from
their children’s education and invest in the development of Greek. However, most
families (Groups A and C) seem to have internalised the beliefs about the adverse
effects of minority language development on the development of the majority one.
As a result, they seem to worry more about jeopardising their children’s chances of
success in the new country than about the loss of a part of their children’s ethnic
identity. This becomes apparent by the quite relaxed attitude these parents adopt
towards their children’s use of Greek at home, as well as their rather lukewarm efforts
to maintain the ethnic language by other strategies. On the contrary, parents in
Group B, while accepting the importance of the majority language for their children’s
future, contest the dominant monolingual ideal and challenge the view of the
supposedly harmful effect of simultaneous bilingualism and biliteracy. As a result,
they defend the development of their ethnic language and employ successful family
language policies which include specific language management efforts. If, as Spolsky
contends (2004, 187), a community’s policy is ultimately reflected in its practices
rather than its management, we conclude that only one-third of our participants
pursue policies which actively promote ethnic language maintenance.
Similar results were obtained from other research in the Albanian community in
Greece. Chatzidaki conducted a questionnaire survey with Albanian parents in two
different parts of Greece with the aim of investigating language practices and
attitudes within the family, as well as patterns of parental involvement in the
children’s education (Chatzidaki 2005, 2007; Kyriazis and Chatzidaki 2005). The
overwhelming majority of her 138 respondents expressed very positive attitudes
towards home language maintenance and positive attitudes towards the acquisition
of Greek by their children as well. They also used Albanian at home quite frequently,
although the children’s preference for Greek was obvious, especially with siblings and
peers. However, the large majority’s language maintenance practices were limited to
speaking Albanian to their children, as only 30% claimed to use literacy development
practices at home. Gogonas (2007, 2009, 2010) used ethnolinguistic vitality theory
(Bourhis, Giles, and Rosenthal 1981) as a framework for the study of the impact of
sociocultural variables on the language use of the Albanian-speaking community in
Athens. He concluded that the Albanian ethnolinguistic group is undergoing rapid
 12 A. Chatzidaki and C. Maligkoudi

language shift, because, among other things, although Albanian parents express
positive attitudes towards language maintenance, in practice many do not take the
necessary measures for intergenerational language transmission. The above-men-
tioned research findings suggest that Albanian immigrant families in Greece do not
apply systematic language policies in support of home language maintenance,
something which our own study supports. They also bring to the surface the
considerable variation observed in this community in this respect.
Obviously, further research is needed as there are many aspects of the Albanian
community’s behaviour which require further investigation. An issue which we shall
be addressing in the near future relates to the reasons for the paucity of mother
tongue courses and the parents’ ambivalence towards their usefulness (Gogonas
2007, 2010; Maligkoudi 2009, 2010). Another issue which needs to be examined
deeper relates to the second-generation Albanian speakers’ own attitudes and views
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

on bilingual development and language maintenance. The study reported here placed
emphasis on the parents’ perspective. Future research should allow for the young
people’s voice to be heard unmediated, as they express their own hopes and
aspirations, their own dilemmas and conflicts, their own idea of what it means to be a
person of Albanian background living in Greece and what this entails for their
identity. As language is a major instrument of identity building, sociolinguistic
research still has a lot to explore with regard to the community in question.
Finally, the interplay between the overall socio-ideological and financial context
and the families’ ideologies may also need to be brought forward in a more
pronounced way than it has in the present study. The current economic crisis in
Greece may very well result in massive waves of repatriation. On the other hand, the
new legislation and ‘regularisation’ programmes allow immigrants to apply for the
status of the ‘long-term resident’ or even for the Greek nationality (Gogonas 2010),
making it thus easier for families to envisage a new life in Greece. Factors such as
these have a direct bearing on the immigrants’ language practices, as well as their
ideologies towards the languages and the societies in which they live.

Notes
1. The 2011 census data have not been made public yet.
2. Greece is one of the few European countries which have not yet signed the European
Charter for Minority and Regional Languages (http://www.coe.int). The Charter ensures
certain language rights for minority languages with a long-standing presence within the
borders of particular states. The ‘languages of migrants’ (such as Arabic, Turkish, but also
Albanian in our case) are explicitly excluded from such provisions, because they are not
considered part of Europe’s cultural heritage. Moreover, as Albania is not yet part of the
EU, Greece is under no obligation to provide mother-tongue courses to Albanian citizens
residing in its territory.

References
Baker, C. 1992. Attitudes and language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. 1995. A parents’ and teachers’ guide to bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. 2006. Introduction to bilingualism and bilingual education. 4th ed. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Borland, H. 2006. Intergenerational language transmission in an established Australian
migrant community: What makes the difference? International Journal of Sociology of
Language 180: 23
41.
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 13

Bourhis, R.Y., H. Giles, and D. Rosenthal. 1981. Notes on the construction of a subjective
vitality questionnaire for ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 2, no. 2: 145
55.
Chatzidaki, A. 2005. Modela diglosikis siberiforas se ikogenies Alvanon mathiton. Dedomena
apo embiriki erevna [Patterns of bilingual behaviour in families of Albanian pupils: An
empirical study]. Epistimes Agoyis Special issue: 79
102.
Chatzidaki, A. 2007. I ebloki Alvanon metanaston stin ekpedefsi ton pedion tous: mia ebiriki
erevna [Albanian parents’ involvement in their children’s education: An empirical study].
In The pedagogical challenge of multiculturalism: Theoretical and practical issues of
intercultural education, ed. C. Govaris, E. Theodoropoulou and A. Kontakos, 133
52.
Athens: Atrapos.
Clyne, M. 1991. Community languages. The Australian experience. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Codó, E. 2008. Interviews and questionnaires. In The Blackwell guide to research methods
in bilingualism and multilingualism, ed. Li Wei and M. Moyer, 158
76. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. 2009. Invisible and visible language planning: Ideological factors in
the family language policy of Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. Language Policy 8:
351
75.
Damanakis, M. 1997. I ekpedefsi ton palinostoundon ke alodapon mathiton stin Elada.
Diapolitismiki prosegisi [The education of repatriated and foreign pupils in Greece. An
intercultural approach]. Athens: Gutenberg.
De Houwer, A. 2007. Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied
Psycholinguistics 28: 411
24.
Dimakos, I.C., and K. Tasiopoulou. 2003. Attitudes towards migrants: What do Greek
students think about their immigrant classmates? Intercultural Education 14, no. 3: 307
16.
Edwards, J. 2004. Language minorities. In The handbook of applied linguistics, ed. A. Davies
and C. Elder, 451
75. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fishman, J.A. 1965/2007. Who speaks what language to whom and when? La Linguistique 2:
67
88. Reprinted in The bilingualism reader. 2nd ed. ed. Li Wei, 55
70. London:
Routledge.
Fishman, J.A. 1991. Reversing language shift. Theoretical and empirical foundations of
assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, J.A. 2001. Can threatened languages be saved? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Frangoudaki, A., and T. Dragonas. 1997. ‘Ti ein’ i patrida mas?’ Ethnokentrismos stin ekpedefsi
[‘What is our country?’ Ethnocentrism in education]. Athens: Alexandria.
Gkaintartzi, A., and R. Tsokalidou. 2011. ‘She is a very good child but she doesn’t speak’:
The invisibility of children’s bilingualism and teacher ideology. Journal of Pragmatics 43:
588
601.
Gogonas, N. 2007. Ethnolinguistic vitality and language maintenance in second-generation
migrants: A study of Albanian and Egyptian pupils in Athens. PhD diss., University of Sussex.
Gogonas, N. 2009. Language shift in second-generation Albanian immigrants in Greece.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 30, no. 2: 95
110.
Gogonas, N. 2010. Bilingualism and multiculturalism in Greek education. Investigating ethnic
language maintenance among pupils of Albanian and Egyptian origin in Athens. Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Gotovos, A., and G. Markou. 2004. Palinostountes ke alodapi mathites stin eliniki ekpedefsi
Vol. II Analitika stichia [Repatriated and foreign students in Greek education. Vol. II,
Detailed presentation]. Athens: Institute of Education for Greeks Abroad and Inter-
cultural Education/Ministry of Education and Religions.
King, K., and L. Fogle. 2006. Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents’ perspectives on
family language policy for additive bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 9, no. 6: 695
712.
Kirsch, C. 2012. Ideologies, struggles and contradictions: An account of mothers raising their
children bilingually in Luxembourgish and English in Great Britain. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15, no. 1: 95
112.
Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
 14 A. Chatzidaki and C. Maligkoudi

Kyriazis, D., and A. Chatzidaki. 2005. Stasis Alvanon metanaston apenandi sti diglossia ton
pedion tous [Attitudes of Albanian immigrants towards their children’s bilingualism]. In
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Greek linguistics 18
21 September, 2003,
vol. II, 860
8, in Rethymno, Greece.
Labrianidis, L., and A. Lyberaki. 2005. Alvani metanastes sti Thessaloniki [Albanian
immigrants in Thessaloniki]. Athens: Patakis.
Lanza, E. 2007. Multilingualism and the family. In Handbook of applied linguistics (Vol. 5:
Multilingualism), ed. Li Wei and P. Auer, 45
67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Luo, S., and R. Wiseman. 2000. Ethnic language maintenance among Chinese immigrant
children in the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24:
307
24.
Lyberaki, A., and T. Maroukis. 2005. Albanian immigrants in Athens: New survey evidence
on employment and integration. Southern European and Black Sea Studies 5, no. 1:
21
48.
Maligkoudi, C. 2009. Tmimata didaskalias tis Alvanikis stin Ellada. Prospathia mias protis
katagrafis [Preliminary findings on Albanian mother-tongue courses in Greece]. Epistimes
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

Agoyis 1: 91
106.
Maligkoudi, C. 2010. I glossiki ekpedefsi ton Alvanon mathiton. Ekpedeftikes politikes ke
ikoyeniakes stratiyikes [The language education of Albanian pupils. Educational policies
and family strategies]. PhD diss., University of Crete.
Mayring, P. 2000. Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1, no. 2.
http://www.qualitative-research.net (accessed August 20, 2008).
Michail, D., and A. Kesko. 2009. Glosiki diatirisi/metakinisi sti defteri genia Alvanon
metanaston stin Elada: kinoniki ensomatosi ke kinitikotita [Language maintenance/shift
in Albanian second-generation immigrants in Greece: Social integration and mobility]. In
Proceedings of the conference ‘the teaching of Greek as a first, second, and foreign language,
September 4
6, 2009, Nymfaio, Florina, Department of Preschool Education, University
of Western Macedonia,). http://linguistics.nured.uowm.gr/Nimfeo2009/praktika/files/
down/paraskeui/aithusa3/mixailkesko (accessed September 15, 2011).
Mitakidou, S., and E. Daniilidou. 2007. Didaskalia ke mathisi tis ellinikis os defteris glossas:
apopsis ekpedeftikon [The teaching and learning of Greek as a second language; teachers’
views]. In Proceedings of the international conference ‘the Greek language as a second/
foreign language. Research, teaching and learning’ May12
14, 2006, Florina, University of
Western Macedonia, ed. K. Dinas and A. Chatzipanayotidi, 453
65. Thessaloniki:
University Studio Press.
Mitakidou, S., E. Tressou, and E. Daniilidou. 2007. Cross-cultural education. A challenge or a
problem? International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, and Practice: Reconcep-
tualizing Childhood Studies 8, no. 1: 67
81.
Namei, S. 2008. Language choice among Iranians in Sweden. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 29, no. 2: 419
37.
Pauwels, A. 2004. Language maintenance. In Handbook of applied linguistics, ed. A. Davies
and C. Elder, 719
37. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Pauwels, A. 2005. Maintaining the community language in Australia: Challenges and roles for
families. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8, nos. 2
3:
124
31.
Portes, A., and L. Hao. 1998. E Pluribus unum: Bilingualism and language loss in the second
generation. Sociology of Education 71: 269
94.
Revythiadou, A. 2012. Opening note in the workshop ‘Language education for bilingual
learners’. KE.DE.A., Aristotle University Research Dissemination Centre, Thessaloniki,
January 14, 2012.
Schwartz, M. 2008. Exploring the relationship between family language policy and heritage
language knowledge among second generation Russian-Jewish immigrants in Israel.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 29, no. 5: 400
18.
Skourtou, E. 2002. Diglosi mathites sto eliniko scholio [Bilingual pupils in the Greek school].
Epistimes Agoyis Special issue: 11
20.
Spolsky, B. 2004. Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. 2012. Family language policy
The critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 33, no. 1: 3
11.
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15

Tannenbaum, M. 2003. The multifaceted aspects of language maintenance: A new measure for
its assessment in immigrant families. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism 6, no. 5: 374
93.
Tsokalidou, R. 2005. Raising ‘bilingual awareness’ in Greek primary schools. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8, no. 1: 48
61.
Wright, S., and N. Kurtoğlu-Hooton. 2006. Language maintenance: The case of a Turkish-
speaking community in Birmingham. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
181: 43
56.
Yağmur, K., and M.-A. Akinci. 2003. Language use, choice, maintenance and ethnolinguistic
vitality of Turkish speakers in France: Intergenerational differences. International Journal
of the Sociology of Language 164: 107
28.
Downloaded by [Christina Maligkoudi] at 07:20 25 August 2012

View publication stats