‘They Started School and Then English Crept in at Home’: Insights into the Influence of Forces Outside the Family Home on Family Language Policy Negotiation Within Polish Transnational Families in Ireland

Abstract

Amidst increased global migration and the close geographic proximity of Poland and Ireland, there exists a significant number of Polish speaking families in Ireland today. This study examines family language policy (FLP) within Polish transnational families in Ireland and addresses a gap in the literature by exploring the influence of forces outside of the family domain on children’s language socialisation and FLP negotiation. These forces include children’s peer groups, school, and societal dominance of English in Irish society. Data were gathered through a combination of a focus group with parents, semi-structured interviews with parents and children, and children’s reflective language diary entries. The findings reveal that, over time, Polish speaking children’s engagement with education, society, and their peers contributes to their English language socialisation. We argue that family members demonstrate an acute awareness of children being socialised into English language use and, as a result, engage in FLP negotiation and language use adaptation within the home. This study demonstrates the significance of the wider sociolinguistic context within which the families are situated, and highlights the influence of multiple forces, outside of the home, on FLP formation and negotiation within the home.

1. Introduction

The influx of migrants from Poland to Ireland became notable following Poland’s accession to the European Union in 2004, coinciding with a rapid expansion of the Irish economy and the availability of lucrative job opportunities (Kropiwiec & King-O Riain, 2006). The 2011 census data showed that a substantial majority of school-age children in households where Polish was the home language were born in Poland, while the 2016 census subsequently revealed a rise in the number of children from Polish families born in Ireland, indicating the emergence of a second generation of Polish youth in Ireland (CSO, 2017). The latest national census (CSO, 2023) identifies Polish as the second most spoken language in Ireland, after English and Irish, with approximately 123,968 individuals speaking Polish at home in Irish households (CSO, 2023).

Research on the cultural and linguistic experiences of the Polish community in Ireland continues to grow, covering topics such as Polish migrant parenting in the Irish context (Kealy & Devaney, 2024), Polish supplementary education (Pedrak, 2019), second-language socialisation among Polish adolescents (Machowska-Kosciak, 2020), and identity formation among young Polish individuals in Ireland (Machowska-Kosciak, 2019; Nestor & Regan, 2011). In her study of a Polish transnational family in Ireland, Smith-Christmas (2021) found that the family practised ‘a strongly pro-Polish FLP’, with parents acting as ‘authorities in Polish’ and their children as ‘authorities in English’ (p. 716). Another recent study of FLP among Polish speaking families in Ireland examined the influence of transnational family life on the family language policy of Polish speaking families in Ireland (Connaughton-Crean & Ó Duibhir, 2024). Other studies in Ireland on family language policy (FLP) have predominantly focused on how speakers of Irish, a native minority language, manage language use within the family environment (Ó hIfearnáin, 2007, 2013; Smith-Christmas, 2022). The primary purpose of the current study is to address a gap in the literature by exploring the impact of Polish speaking children’s engagement with the Irish education system, peers, and society on language socialisation and family language policy negotiation within Polish transnational families in Ireland.

1.1. Language Education Policy in Ireland

In the Republic of Ireland (RoI), children can be educated in English, through English-medium schools, or in the Irish language through Irish-medium schools (IM). English-medium schools constitute more than 90% of primary schools, where Irish is an obligatory subject. A recent study addresses the fact that there is an under-representation of children from linguistically diverse backgrounds in Irish-medium schools in Ireland (Ní Dhiorbháin et al., 2023). In 2010, 12% of all primary students and 10% of post-primary students in Ireland were from a migrant background (DES, 2011). As expected, the census indicated that the ability of migrant children to speak English improves rapidly once children start school (CSO, 2017). The most recent census in Ireland shows us that the population of Ireland has risen by 7.6% to 5.1 million since the 2016 census as a result of increased immigration (CSO, 2023). In this way, we can posit that significant numbers of children in the education system in Ireland speak an additional language different from English or Irish at home.

From 2004 onwards, the Irish government addressed the increasing diversity in Irish schools through various measures, such as the publication of official policy circulars in 2007 and 2009 which offered specific guidance for primary and post-primary schools on catering for students with English as an additional language (EAL). Publications by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA, 2005, 2006) aimed to promote intercultural education and guidance around teaching children with EAL in a rapidly evolving educational landscape. An increasing body of literature has underscored the significance of home languages and the necessity of acknowledging them within Irish schools (Bracken et al., 2009; Kirwan, 2013; Little & Kirwan, 2019; Mc Daid, 2011). Some research has revealed negative outcomes, demonstrating a failure to recognise children’s home languages in the school setting (Devine, 2005; Mc Daid, 2011; Nowlan, 2008; Wallen & Kelly-Holmes, 2006) and the presence of “deficit constructs” concerning children from migrant backgrounds (Devine & McGillicuddy, 2016). In their examination of first-generation minority language, children within an Irish primary school, Connaughton-Crean and Ó Duibhir (2017) observed a notable absence of opportunities for migrant children in Ireland to nurture their literacy skills in their home language. Machowska-Kosciak (2017) proposed integrating Polish language instruction, along with other minority languages, into the mainstream curriculum, positing that it would not only benefit Polish students but also enrich Irish society as a whole. A significant study focusing on a primary school in Ireland where the diverse home languages of pupils were acknowledged, embraced, and integrated into all aspects of school life particularly emphasised the potential for all schools to leverage linguistic diversity as educational assets (Kirwan, 2013; Little & Kirwan, 2019).

In recent years, there has been considerable progress in language education policy in Ireland. The Primary Language Curriculum (DES, 2019) recognises the value of a diverse linguistic environment in classrooms (DES, 2019). In 2017, the Minister for Education and Skills introduced Languages Connect, Ireland’s Strategy for Foreign Languages in Education, 2017–2026 (DES, 2017), which emphasises the linguistic diversity of the “new Irish” and outlines various initiatives which have already been implemented and others which have planned implementation dates. A recent interim review of the strategy stated that “much has been accomplished but there is still much to be done” (DES, 2023). The formal introduction of modern foreign languages into the senior classes of the primary school in Ireland will commence in September 2026. This refers to children who are typically aged between 9 and 13 years old and in 3rd to 6th classes. Curriculum specifications for Mandarin Chinese, Polish, Lithuanian, and Portuguese were implemented in post-primary schools in September 2020 with the first Leaving Certificate examinations taking place in June 2022. The Leaving Certificate is the final set of examinations taken at the end of post-primary education in Ireland for students who are approximately 18 years old.

1.2. Family Language Policy and Theoretical Framework

Family language policy (FLP) research is interdisciplinary, drawing on theoretical frameworks of language policy, language socialisation, literacy studies, and child language acquisition (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009). FLP studies explore familial language dynamics in everyday interactions, including attitudes, beliefs, and efforts towards language use and learning outcomes (King & Logan-Terry, 2008). While FLP entails deliberate language planning within households (Spolsky, 2004), research also sheds light on the implicit and subtle aspects of language planning at home (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009; Fogle, 2012). Bourdieu’s (1977b) conceptualisation of linguistic capital depicted the potential value that language can have for individuals and posited that individuals are more willing to learn languages which are ascribed higher values. English is viewed as cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1977a) and is therefore ascribed a higher status within migrant and transnational families (Baker, 2011).

The present study draws on Curdt-Christiansen’s (2018) interdisciplinary framework of FLP (Figure 1) and theories of language socialisation. It examines the three interconnected elements of language policy (language ideologies, language practices, and language management) within the familial setting. According to Canagarajah (2008) “the family is not self-contained, closed off to other social institutions and economic conditions” (p. 173). We recognise that participants’ beliefs about language and language practices are influenced by internal factors like the home environment and family migration experiences, as well as external societal factors, such as the school and local community. The study acknowledges that families engage with the broader sociolinguistic environment, and such interaction occurs primarily through language as a medium during the process of language socialisation. By doing so, it establishes connections between private (family) and public (societal) spheres within the framework of FLP and the complex interplay between FLP and its sociolinguistic and sociocultural contexts (Curdt-Christiansen, 2018). The research delves into the pivotal role of language socialisation within the family and society. It emphasises the joint involvement of parents and children in these processes, recognising children as active agents in socialisation.

1.3. Language Socialisation

Language socialisation has been defined as “the process by which novices or newcomers in a community or culture gain communicative competence, membership, and legitimacy in the group” (Duff, 2007, p. 310). Research linked to language socialisation has traditionally focused on the process by which children are socialised through language as they are being socialised to use language (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a, 1986b). Although language socialisation research was initially more typically focused on children acquiring their first language (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a), the field has expanded to focus more on language socialisation studies in second language acquisition among children and other novices in transnational contexts (Fogle, 2012; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011). As a result of examining how children acquire language within different societies, researchers have been enabled to identify how “children became particular types of speakers and members of communities” throughout their acquisition of a language (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011, p. 2).

Language socialisation is considered a lifespan process which occurs across multiple settings or communities, to include homes, schools, religious institutions, workplaces, and many other environments (Ochs, 1999; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011). Considering families’ participation in multiple settings and environments over an expanded period of time can build up a clearer picture of FLP. While language socialisation for heritage language learners or bilinguals begins with everyday encounters at home, their learning of language and culture extends beyond the home and is determined by an individual’s access to and participation in activities supporting their heritage language (Duff, 2014). According to Machowska-Kosciak (2013), the educational system plays a crucial role in language socialisation. In her study of Polish adolescent immigrant students in Irish post-primary schools, Machowska-Kosciak (2020) seeks “to shed light on schooling and family communities and the role they play in the socialization processes” (p. 28). The findings of her study elucidate the monolingual norms present in the Irish education system and the resulting compartmentalisation of Polish adolescents’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

Traditional theories of language socialisation have perceived the transmissive, top-down process of language socialisation (Fogle, 2012; Moore, 2005) with the child being viewed “as something that needs to be moulded and guided by society in order to become a fully-fledged member” (Lanza, 2007, p. 47). More recent interpretations of children as active agents allow us to form newer conceptualisations of language socialisation processes (Lanza, 2007; Schwartz, 2010). The concept of language socialisation as a co-constructed and collaborative process (Fogle, 2012; Kulick & Schieffelin, 2007) promotes the recognition of children’s agentic capabilities. The child’s active role in family language socialisation processes came to light in more recent studies of FLP (Fogle, 2012, 2013; Fogle & King, 2013; Lanza, 2007; Luykx, 2005; Palviainen & Boyd, 2013). Previous studies have also drawn attention to the important and supportive role that children and adolescents could play in helping their parents in a new language environment (Luykx, 2005). The capabilities of children to act as language brokers (Antonini, 2016) in migrant and transnational situations is also demonstrative of significant language socialisation processes. The current study considers the bidirectionality of children’s and parents’ active roles in these processes.

This study addresses a research gap by focusing specifically on the experiences of Polish transnational families in Ireland, a community which needs greater attention in FLP research. While previous studies in the Irish context have examined Irish as a minority language, few have considered how Polish-speaking families in Ireland negotiate language use in response to their children’s engagement with the Irish education system and the wider society. By examining FLP within this community-specific context, the study contributes valuable, situated insights into the interplay between home and Irish societal influences on family language practices. It explores the lived realities of Ireland’s largest migrant language group by highlighting linguistic negotiations within Polish families as they navigate bilingual and bicultural lives.

2. Materials and Methods

This paper draws on findings from a larger two-phased ethnographic study of FLP formation within Polish transnational families in Ireland and addresses the following research question: How do educational institutions, children’s school peers and English language dominance in the community impact language socialisation and family language policy within Polish transnational families in Ireland, as reported by parents and children? During the first phase of the study, a qualitative focus group interview was undertaken with six Polish migrant parents and individual interviews were carried out with a further six parents. The purpose of this initial phase of the study was to gain initial insight into the language experiences of Polish migrant families in Ireland before undertaking longer term case studies with five families during the second phase of the research study. All data were gathered through the medium of English. The findings presented in this paper draw on specific data sets from both phases of the research.

2.1. Participant Recruitment and Profiles

One of the researchers was already familiar with many members of the Polish community residing in her hometown through previous research with Polish children in a primary school there. This large town is situated in the West of Ireland and experienced very high levels of migration between the years 2004 and 2010. Initially, several individuals from the local Polish community were approached and offered an invitation for their participation in the research study. Additionally, we reached out to childcare facilities, preschool providers, primary schools, and post-primary schools in various regions of Ireland, disseminating a recruitment flyer to parents, providing information about the research, and inviting them to take part. Ethical approval was gained from the Research Ethics Committee within the University in advance of all fieldwork.

Twelve participants chosen to participate in the first phase of the study were first-generation Polish migrants living in Ireland for a period of between 1 and 17 years. Their children ranged in age from 1 to 18 years and attended English-medium childcare or school settings. As participants were not known to each other, we felt it was important to allow time for introductions, establish a respectful environment, and clarify the protection of anonymity. It is also important to note that these participants consisted primarily of mothers, reflecting the greater number of mothers expressing an interest to participate in the research compared to fathers.

Table 1. Focus group participants from phase 1.

Name	Mother or Father	Years in Ireland	Current Occupation	No. of Children	Transcript Reference
Gracja	Mother	9 years	Fitness instructor	2 (Ages 4 and 6)	FG
Marcel	Father	7 years	Mechanic	2 (Ages 2 and 5)	FG
Daria	Mother	11 years	Stay-at-home mother	2 (Ages 4 and 8)	FG
Natalia	Mother	1 year	Hairdresser	2 (Ages 6 and 12)	FG
Patrycja	Mother	2005–2008 (3 years) 2013–present (4 years)	Stay-at-home mother	2 (Ages 6 and 12)	FG
Karina	Mother	10 years	Chef	2 (Ages 1 and 7)	FG

and

Table 2. Individual interview participants from phase 1.

Name	Mother or Father	Years in Ireland	Current Occupation	No. of Children	Transcript Reference
Lidia	Mother	17 years	Shop assistant	2 (Ages 11 and 17)	II1
Wioletta	Mother	10 years	Childcare worker	2 (Ages 5 and 18)	II2
Dawid	Father	11 years	Hotel waiter	2 (Ages 13 and 16)	II3
Judyta	Mother	12 years	School secretary	1 (Age 9)	II4
Martyna	Mother	10 years	Part-time shop assistant and part-time student	2 (Ages 1 and 4)	II5
Ewa	Mother	11 years	Kitchen worker in childcare facility	2 (Ages 4 and 7)	II6

below present information on these participants including age, occupation, and length of time in Ireland.

An additional recruitment process involved choosing five families to participate in the second phase of the research. The families chosen represented different family structures, including single-parent families, two-parent families, and transnational families living between Poland and Ireland. The families chosen had children who ranged in age from 2 to 17 years in varying school settings, from preschool to third-level. All children attended English-medium childcare or school settings. Families were representative of the diverse experiences of Polish transnational families in Ireland.

Table 3. Participants from phase 2.

Family Name	Parent’s Name	Years in Ireland	Child’s Name and Age	Current Education	Languages Spoken in the Home
Kowalski (Family A)	Matyas (Father)	13 years	Zofia Age 16	Transition Year (Post-primary school)	Polish English
	Sonia (Mother)	11 years	Agata Age 13	Second year (Post-primary school)
Lewandowski (Family B)	Hanna (Mother)	3 years	Ola Age 3	Preschool	Polish
Kropkowska (Family C)	Oskar (Father)	13 years	Henryk Age 17	Fifth year (Post-primary school)	Polish English
	Malgorzata (Mother)	12 years
Mazur (Family D)	Jakub (Father)	10 years	Zuzanna Age 7 (born in Ireland)	First class (Primary school)	Polish English
	Aneta (Mother)	10 years	Maja Age 5 (born in Ireland)	Junior infants (Primary school)
Nowak (Family E)	Bozena (Mother)	13 years	Kacper Age 16	Transition Year (Post-primary school)	Polish English
			Filip Age 14	Second year (Post-primary school)
	Bartek (Father)	12 years	Szymon Age 11	Fourth class (Primary school)
			Antoni Age 5	Junior infants (Primary school)

below provides a description of the families and individual members of the families participating in phase 2 of the research.

2.2. Data Collection Methods and Analysis

This paper draws upon a variety of data sets. For phase 1 of the study, these include a focus group interview with six parents (n = 1) and individual interviews with parents (n = 6). For phase 2 of the study, the data sets we draw on in this paper include interviews with the family (n = 5), interviews with children aged seven years and above (n = 7), interviews with parents (n = 9), and reflective language diaries written by children aged 12 years and above (n = 5) documenting their thoughts, emotions, and beliefs regarding language usage. We are cognisant of the fact that this was a particularly small sample to draw conclusions from. In order to lessen this limitation, we purposely used certain criteria in choosing the families that participated in the case studies. This included choosing families located in different geographic regions and settings, families with children of varying ages, two-parent and one-parent families, and families with varied transnational links with Poland. This ensured that the sample was nationally representative and that a range of family types with differing experiences and perspectives were chosen. Furthermore, choosing ethnography as the methodology enabled us to engage in an extended period of observation and data collection which resulted in gaining insights into the lived experiences of family members in the home setting.

Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019) was deemed the most suitable approach for data analysis for phases 1 and 2 of the study due to its applicability in working with diverse and varied types of data. Similar themes were generated across both the individual interviews and the focus group discussion, indicating similarity across participants’ perspectives and experiences. While individual interviews allowed for more in-depth reflections, the focus group enabled participants to share varying experiences within the Polish community in Ireland. The process of data analysis involved multiple rounds of reviewing the data sets to ensure that the coding process accurately reflected the researchers’ evolving and deepening comprehension of the data. Inductive coding of the data occurred by identifying a combination of semantic codes representing explicit or surface-level meanings, and latent codes capturing implicit or underlying meanings. Inductive coding was deemed most appropriate, as the goal of data analysis was to derive meaning from the raw data without imposing preconceived categories (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). This approach resulted in a combination of descriptive codes and interpretative codes. Additionally, the coding process was guided by the theoretical framework by focusing on and identifying codes related to language socialisation processes and family language policy. The findings are a triangulation of all data sets from each of the individual five case studies which went through rigorous thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Researcher reflexivity was crucial and a fieldnotes diary was consistently used and drawn upon throughout the research process reflexivity.

3. Results

3.1. Parents’ Awareness of Their Children Being Socialised into English Language Use

Findings from the first phase of the study revealed clear evidence of language socialisation processes occurring across multiple settings (Ochs, 1999; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011), which contributed to children’s gradual and increased use of English. All parents expressed the belief that children’s exposure to English in childcare settings, school, and the local community had resulted in their children speaking more English inside and outside the home over time. According to Ewa, “they mix Polish and English now because they use English at school and preschool” (II6). Martyna observed that when she dropped her daughter to the childcare setting, “everything is in English because she has arrived, and everything is in English after this. And she’s surrounded by Irish kids” (II5). During the focus group interview, Marcel stated that “I did see that children were speaking more English in the home because of playschool” (FG). Patrycja agreed with this and gave examples of how her son’s English language use has increased over time: “When he started junior infants, he had some problems to speak English for maybe four months … now when he is playing Playstation or with friends he uses English all the time” (FG). Gracja similarly described how “my children play together and talk in English … even Polish friends coming to our house. The children all speak English together now” (FG). Similarly, Dawid noticed the impact of primary school on his two sons’ increased use of English:

What I find is that when Kuba is with Polish friends, they speak English. This is common I think for kids from Poland who are living here a long time, maybe ten years because of the school, and they are walking around the house speaking English.

(II3)

Similar findings emerged during phase 2 of the study. Bartek expressed the opinion that his children acquired English before starting school because of its dominance in the community: “You see what happened with Antoni and Szymon, they started to pick up English months before they started school because they were outside playing with the neighbours” (Father, Family E). Bozena described her younger children as “Polish children born in Ireland and all the words around them was English” (Mother, Family E). These descriptions highlight the dominance of English in the local community. Hanna spoke Polish with her 3-year-old daughter Ola at home but was aware that Ola sometimes learned words for the first time in English rather than Polish as a result of attending crèche part-time. Hanna demonstrated an awareness of the dominance and value of English:

It’s like in English-speaking countries, English is dominant and all the other languages, even the native languages, don’t matter so much. I think it’s because English is the language people speak and you don’t have to learn another language to do well because everybody in the world is learning English.

(Mother, Family B)

Children’s increased use of English over time as they participated more fully in school and society portrays language socialisation as a lifespan process occurring across multiple sites (Ochs, 1999; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011), including home and school. Parents such as Bozena aptly described this language socialisation process:

When they start the primary school and when they make the Irish friends, this is when they speak so much English and then they get used to this more and more and they spend more time with their friends outside the house.

(Mother, Family E)

Similarly, Matyas described the striking impact of children’s engagement with school on family language practices: “I couldn’t believe how suddenly there was so much English in the house after Zofia was in the primary school” (Father, Family A).

While language socialisation for children begins with everyday encounters within the family home, their learning of language extends beyond the home and is determined by an individual’s access to and participation in activities supporting their heritage language (Duff, 2014). Parents reported a lack of opportunity for their children to use or learn Polish during the school day. Furthermore, there was also clear evidence to highlight the fact that parents received conflicting forms of advice from educators in relation to their children’s language practices. According to Sonia, “I never met any teacher who said to give up Polish or speak more English” (Mother, Family A). Contrary to this, Aneta reported that:

I got advice from preschool for Zuzanna that I should teach her a little bit of English but I refused. I don’t want to teach incorrect English. I see lots of parents doing this and it’s not good. If they would like their children to have some English words, the children will get them themselves because they have to.

(Mother, Family D)

In relation to this particular advice given by the preschool educator, Aneta chose to discount the advice, expressing the feeling that it was preferable for children to learn English in school and in the community, and to use Polish in the home. Similarly, Matyas was also advised to speak English at home by his child’s teacher, but expressed similar feelings to Aneta:

You know Zofia’s teacher in junior infants said to me ‘Can you speak English at home so she will learn it more quickly?’ and my answer was ‘No, we will never do this. Polish is our language and they will need the language for when they are with Polish family.’ Also I was thinking our English is not too good for speaking at home.

(Father, Family A)

The narrative from Matyas is indicative of some parents’ willingness to make their own decisions and do what they feel is best for their children’s language learning. Findings from a study examining the impact of Dutch mainstream teachers on the family language policy of Turkish immigrant parents in the Netherlands also found that parents and primary school teachers had similar beliefs and opinions regarding use of the home language in family situation (Bezcioglu-Göktolga & Yagmur, 2018).

3.2. Children’s Awareness of English Language Importance and Language Practice Preferences

Children themselves recognised the significance of school, the local community, and peer groups for their English language use and language preferences. According to Agata, “All of my friends are Irish so I’m speaking English with them” (Daughter, Family A). She also explained that there were not many opportunities to use Polish in the local community. For example, “in swimming … sometimes we talk in Polish but our main coach goes ‘stop talking Polish, we don’t know what you’re talking about’”. According to Kacper, “I mean it has to be English all day for us learning through English in school and hanging out with friends who are not Polish” (Son, Family E). Through their participation and interactions in the school and community, it can be asserted that children were socialised into English language use (Moore, 2005) within the local community.

While research depicts the global value placed on the English language and its high status worldwide (Baker, 2011), it can be asserted that children’s preference for English language use in the context of this study was primarily for pragmatic reasons in including communication and competence in the language of the local community. In conveying the significance of the English language, Henryk explained that “I have English five days a week and then I’m surrounded with English-speaking people” (Son, Family C). Kacper pointed out that “when we learn anything, we learn it in English. Everything I learned and that I would like to discuss, I learned it in English”. Kacper’s narrative illustrates the impact of English being the dominant language in education. His view of English as the dominant language in his life is highlighted further in the excerpt below:

The majority of my life is now in English. Like, the majority of people I talk to, I talk to in English. Therefore, it just becomes the default. Like, it becomes the language I turn to. I know more words in English and I can express myself better in English. I’ve just been here so much longer. So it’s Polish for the home stuff and English for everything else.

(Son, Family E)

Filip similarly asserted that “I speak English most of the day … I speak mostly in English to my friends. None of my friends that I hang around with daily speak Polish so there’s not much opportunity there” (Son, Family E). In the context of the current study, children’s language preferences and practices can be interpreted as a marker of their context-dependent socialisation (Machowska-Kosciak, 2013, 2017). Szymon’s portrayal of the dominance of English in his everyday life is illustrative of the influence of the peer group on children’s language practices:

I don’t really get the opportunity to speak Polish very often since I’m always out with my friends or in school. I honestly find it easier to speak English since my English is more developed than my Polish.

(Son, Family E)

As many of the children either arrived in Ireland at a very young age or were born in Ireland, learning and being exposed to English was natural for them. Agata, for example, moved to Ireland when she was 2 years old, so “I guess English was kind of my first language to speak in a way because I am here since I was 2 years old” (Daughter, Family A). This was not the case for other children who moved to Ireland at an older age and, as previously described by children and parents, faced the challenge of acquiring the English language. Despite this, the majority of the children perceived English to be the dominant and most important language in their lives at the time of the study. Although Zofia recalled the initial difficulties she faced in learning English on her arrival in Ireland, she expressed that “I’ll probably use English as an adult” (Daughter, Family A).

The following excerpt from a conversation that took place between Henryk and his mother Malgorzata, provided a clear insight into the contrasting linguistic profiles and repertoires of parents and children:

Henryk: I think through English.

Malgorzata: And in Polish…no?

Henryk: When I think in my head, I always picture in English. I never think through Polish. I don’t think I’ll ever think through Polish.

Malgorzata: And of course I think through Polish.

Henryk: I don’t know where it comes from. I don’t know why I think in English and not Polish. But it doesn’t bother me at all.

(Family C)

English as the lingua franca in the children’s surroundings and, in particular, within the education system, resulted in participants linking particular knowledge and learning to the English language. For instance, Agata describes that “things about subjects like Chemistry, I don’t really understand these words in Polish, but in English I would definitely understand them” (Daughter, Family A). Many of the children described the ease with which English comes to them, as a result of being educated through English. As described by Zofia, “English just comes to me” but in relation to Polish, “sometimes it’s like phrasing that gets me. I think like how do I phrase this?” (Daughter, Family A). Henryk explained “I definitely read English way faster than Polish. I write in English faster than in Polish … When I think of a sentence I’m going to say to my parents in Polish, it takes me a longer time to say in Polish than it would in English” (Son, Family C).

While all of the children described themselves as fluent speakers of Polish and English, a clear preference for English language use was expressed by the majority of the children. In his reflective language diary, Filip explained that “I like the English language because it’s easier than Polish” (Son, Family E). Other children expressed a preference for English over Polish for similar reasons. According to Agata:

It’s easier for me to read and write in English. I would choose to read English books quicker. I read to expand my vocabulary and English I use more often in school, so picking English books is more useful to me for vocabulary.

(Daughter, Family A)

While many of the children considered returning to Poland to attend university, they displayed a clear preference for studying through English in university in Poland. According to Henryk, “If I ever went back to study in Poland I would prefer an English course. I wouldn’t be able to do any course in university in the Polish language. It would have to be in English, yeah” (Son, Family C). Kacper seemed unsure about the prospect of studying through Polish, stating, “Ehh … I’d rather English but I could manage Polish perhaps” (Son, Family E). According to Filip, if he decided to attend university in Poland, “My preference would definitely be English. I have tried Polish but I really prefer to read in English. Online, I’ll sometimes read Polish, but I prefer to read English books” (Son, Family E).

Overall, evidence amongst school- and college-going siblings of speaking English to each other was evident in the findings. According to Henryk, “I prefer speaking English with my sister as well” (Son, Family C). Filip described how he found it easier to speak English with his siblings:

When it comes to my brothers, I don’t really use too much Polish. Me and Kacper speak about school, friends, games all the time so it’s very difficult to translate all the words in our heads and talk about the things in Polish when we could just go to the easier alternative and speak English.

(Son, Family E)

In his reflective language diary, Szymon noted how “I speak English with my brothers because we talk about different topics that we find easier to talk about in English” (Son, Family E). The data revealed that older children in particular demonstrated a preference to converse in the English language with siblings.

Children’s ideologies of English as a form of linguistic and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1991) were clear from the findings. The multiple benefits of English for future employment, travel, and global communication were discussed by the children. In his reflective language diary, Szymon recorded:

I have travelled around most of Europe and being able to speak English has been an advantage. I believe that English is a very handy and smart language. It is a very useful language and I think it will really help me in the future.

(Son, Family E)

According to Agata, “My thoughts on the English language are that I can almost speak to everyone whether we are abroad and asking for directions or meeting new people” (Daughter, Family A). The long-term benefits of speaking English were summed up by Zofia as follows:

I think English will be great for me in the future if I want to work abroad or travel. My cousins in Poland learn English but they are not so fluent and it would be harder for them to communicate with people like in a work space if they ever work abroad but it’ll be easier for me because loads of people speak English around the world.

(Daughter, Family A)

In summary, children were highly cognisant of the dominance of English around them and they displayed an understanding of the vital role that English played in their everyday lives, language practices, and preferences. Most significantly, they considered English as linguistic capital and an asset for their futures.

3.3. Children’s Experiences of Polish Language Recognition, Use, and Non-Use in School Settings

The importance of affirming, acknowledging, and promoting children’s home languages in schools is addressed in official curriculum documents (NCCA, 2005, 2006), and the recently published Primary Language Curriculum (DES, 2019) calls for partnerships between home and school to support children’s home language maintenance and learning (DES, 2019). However, such national-level policies do not always transfer to micro-level school practices, and children described numerous instances in school when they were prevented from using or speaking Polish with other Polish children in their classrooms. Zofia, for example, described examples of teachers in primary school preventing her and other Polish children in the school from using Polish in class and in the school yard when she was in primary school:

There were other kids from Poland in my class and we used to talk Polish together during the break but teachers told us to stop speaking Polish and to use English in the class … It felt so weird because I knew what I wanted to say to them in Polish but to try and say the same in English was tricky. The teachers knew I knew Polish but they probably wanted me to learn English since I was living in Ireland and English is the main language here.

(Daughter, Family A)

In this instance, Zofia’s suggestion that teachers prevented her from using Polish in an effort to support her English language learning is demonstrative of the trust she placed in teachers with regard to her language learning. Zofia’s acceptance of learning English as “the main language here” is symbolic of the cultural and linguistic capital associated with the English language (Bourdieu, 1991) and the expectation for migrant children to fit in with mainstream society (Baker, 2011; Nero, 2005). Agata described the implicit rules that were enforced around Polish language use when she was in primary school: “It always had to be English in the classroom but we did speak Polish on the yard” (Daughter, Family A). In this case, the teacher permitted children to speak Polish outside of the classroom only. Agata’s narrative exhibits the monolingual approach evident in classrooms as described by participants. According to Antoni, “I’m not allowed speak Polish in school because all my friends are English. I mean Irish. And the teacher doesn’t allow it” (Daughter, Family E). The non-recognition of migrant children’s home languages in Irish schools has previously been referred to in the literature (Connaughton-Crean & Ó Duibhir, 2017; Devine, 2005; Mc Daid, 2011; Nowlan, 2008; Wallen & Kelly-Holmes, 2006). Henryk revealed the limited opportunities his teacher gave him to use and speak Polish in school and recalled that in junior infants in primary school “I used to show off some of the Polish words on the blackboard and the children would be like ‘whoa what’s that word?’ but I didn’t speak it that often in school” (Son, Family C). The new Primary Language Curriculum (DES, 2019) promotes the use of and exposure to “a variety of languages in a classroom” in order to embrace the multilingual classroom, and should lead to greater opportunities for children to use and appreciate home languages.

On the other hand, some children described the ways in which their knowledge of the Polish language was helpful for the school community. These related to welcoming and helping newly arrived Polish children who were not yet competent in English. Zofia recalled that “whenever there was a new person from Poland with no English, I helped the parents translate stuff with the principal … I was like a translator” (Daughter, Family A). Such assistance provided by children in the role of language brokers has previously been described as unrecognised language services (Antonini, 2016). Zofia demonstrated an awareness that her use of Polish in school was “just for helping the teachers or principal translate really … the kids in my class didn’t really see me getting to use Polish at all”. Filip also discussed similar involvement in translating and interpreting in his school:

I had to do lots of translation for the teachers when a new Polish child came or when they needed me to help a younger child. If there was a Polish child crying, they came to me and asked me to talk to the young child in Polish to try help them.

(Son, Family E)

Filip’s narrative highlights the significant and possibly difficult situations that migrant children are sometimes tasked to deal with (Antonini, 2016). In the case of the current research, the data clearly highlight the fact that children perceived the use of Polish in school as a tool for helping others or for translating for teachers or the school principal. It could be interpreted that children’s home language was limited to situations where children were acting as language brokers. Other opportunities to use Polish or share their knowledge of Polish with school peers were not widely reported by the children.

The data clearly demonstrated the impact of peer groups and friendships on children’s use and non-use of Polish in school and in the community. Many of the children described their friends as English-speaking friends and this resulted in non-use of Polish in their peer groups, although Zofia explained that “I talk in Polish to other Polish girls in school. We do speak Polish together” (Daughter, Family A). While some children described speaking Polish with other Polish friends, the data clearly showed that Polish children did not always speak Polish together. Henryk discussed how his language practice differs with various groups of Polish friends:

I’ve a few Polish friends because I went to Polish school and made friends there. Surprisingly, we speak all Polish because if I spoke English, it would be really awkward to hear us speaking English because we are just used to Polish in Polish school … Another Polish friend I have … I speak to him in English because I know him very well since second class of primary school.

(Son, Family C)

The excerpt above shows Henryk’s differentiated language norms for communicating with different groups of Polish friends. Henryk’s use of English among some Polish friends and Polish among other friends suggests that he viewed himself as belonging to different social groups within the Polish community.

3.4. Negotiating Family Language Policy

There was clear evidence of family language policy negotiation within the home, which occurred as a direct result of language socialisation processes which extended beyond the home and to children’s participation in school and the community (Duff, 2014). Aneta described Polish as the dominant language that had been used in the family home until the children started primary school, and expressed that “it’s very funny to see how school changes the language they speak in home” (Mother, Family D). Parents demonstrated the understanding that although children grew up with Polish as the language of the family home, their participation in education and society necessitated their use of English and this then increased children’s English language use in the home. Parents such as Jakub were cognisant that their children used English for the majority of the day: “I mean they need English for school and to do well in Ireland, and they have to speak English in school all day” (Father, Family D). Similarly to other parents, Matyas described how his children moved fluidly between Polish and English in their daily lives: “For the kids, they speak English all day in the school. Then we speak Polish while we are having dinner … then it’s back to them speaking English again for the kids with each other” (Father, Family A). Matyas’s description of his children’s language use patterns illuminates how children adapted their language practices to suit particular contexts, and this family language practice “could reflect sociocultural changes in intergenerational interaction” (Schwartz, 2010, p. 178).

Parents with teenage children described their children’s particular preference for English language use in the family home. In many cases, parents acknowledged the fact that their children found it easier to speak and express themselves in English. According to Wioletta:

Kamil, because he is here more years than he was in Poland he prefers to communicate in English … In English he can speak better. He says ‘I use English in school so I am more familiar with it’ … You see I know everything he does is in English now. He goes to the movies. They are in English. He goes to school. Everything is in English. He speaks English with many of his friends. He was eight when he left Poland and he is now 18 years old. English is his language I know.

(II2)

Wioletta demonstrated an acute awareness of how her son had been socialised into English language use. Lidia also expressed a similar feeling that her teenage daughter Jagoda “thinks in English first” and did not display an interest in speaking or using Polish (II1). Similarly, Lidia’s son Kuba wants “English all the time” (II2). While Lidia described how her children watched Polish television and spoke Polish with their parents in the family home, they both displayed a preference for English language use outside of their communication with parents.

Despite the fact that all nine parents from phase 2 of the study referred to Polish as the language of the family home, the data revealed that Polish was not used exclusively in any of the homes at the time of the study, as a combination of Polish and English was used in all homes. The data clearly highlighted the influence of external forces and factors on language practices inside the family home (Curdt-Christiansen, 2018; Spolsky, 2012), especially the school and local community. Parents described how children began to use increased amounts of English in the home after they entered English-medium childcare settings, preschools, and primary school. Bozena expressed, “We only spoke Polish at home when they were young, and they were at home with me so they were only speaking Polish, so when I sent them to crèche and preschool they had no English really” (Mother, Family E). Similarly, Aneta recalled that there “was no English in the house until the girls went to the preschool and then they brought the English home” (Mother, Family D). Sonia felt that “English just crept in after the girls started school” (Mother, Family A). These descriptions from parents are illustrative of “FLP being shaped by the external environments through language socialisation” (Curdt-Christiansen, 2018, p. 421).

4. Discussion

As espoused in Curdt-Christiansen’s (2018) framework, families interact with the wider sociolinguistic environment through the process of language socialisation, and the findings of this study clearly elucidated the impact of wider society on children’s gradual and increased use of English inside and outside the family home. Parents and children expressed the belief that children’s engagement with school led to an increased use of English both inside and outside the home. Parents and children described a lack of opportunities to speak Polish during the school day. In this way, the findings illuminated the linguistic conflicts that can arise between the home as the private domain, and the school as the public domain (Curdt-Christiansen, 2013). As previously alluded to, there are currently significant changes and exciting developments occurring in educational language policy in Ireland, and it can be assumed that such progress can have a more positive impact on the recognition and formal teaching of the Polish language in the school setting.

Participants’ views of English as an important asset for children’s future prospects is indicative of their understanding of linguistic capital. Notwithstanding this, parents clearly displayed a striking desire to maintain Polish and to encourage their children to engage in Polish language development and maintenance. This indeed implies that FLP is guided by the family’s perception of how language choices can enhance social status and support family members’ life goals (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009).

The current study explored language-related aspects of socialisation processes inside the family home, including language choice, language competence, and language ideologies. Findings illuminated parents’ and children’s joint roles in language socialisation processes within the family domain. Children’s ability to exercise agency in their choice of language use within the home resulted in parents’ acceptance of “English as the language that crept in”. Parents’ pragmatic approaches to accepting English language use in the home while also promoting Polish as the language of the family home further extends our knowledge of the difficult choices they face regarding FLP. We argue that such negotiation between parents and children adds to our understanding of a co-constructed FLP in the context of Curdt-Christiansen’s (2018) framework of FLP and Spolsky’s (2004) model of language policy. In this way, the findings from this study challenge traditional views of language socialisation as a top-down process (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a) and concur with more recent studies of FLP which identify children as socialising agents (Luykx, 2005; Revis, 2019).

5. Conclusions

The study makes a significant and community-specific contribution to the field of FLP by exploring the influence of forces outside of the family domain on children’s language socialisation and FLP negotiation within the homes of Polish transnational families in Ireland. The study deepens our understanding of how Polish families in Ireland navigate Polish language maintenance and societal integration. Moreover, the study highlights the co-construction of FLP between parents and children within the Polish community in Ireland. The findings clearly reveal how external forces such as the school environment and peer group impacts and shapes family language practices. While the study confirms already known patterns in FLP research, this particular study addresses a gap by offering insights into an under-researched group.

We acknowledge that the research for the current study was undertaken within a designated and defined timeframe and that language socialisation processes will continue to evolve and develop over time for these participating families. The implications drawn from this study can offer valuable insights into the negotiation and reconstruction of FLP to suit the everchanging needs and circumstances of individual families.