‘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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article Review

Title: 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

1. Novelty

The study explores how external societal forces impact family language policy negotiation within Polish transnational families in Ireland. The focus on this specific community is important and timely, as there is a genuine gap in research addressing the impact of external influences on FLP in Polish families in the Irish context. However, the broader phenomenon of societal influence on FLP is already well-established. The true novelty lies in the community-specific application, and the manuscript would benefit from framing it this way rather than implying broader theoretical novelty.

Additionally, while the literature review situates the study within relevant research and acknowledges key theoretical pillars (child agency, interplay of home and society), it does not sustain the articulation of the research gap after the introduction. The contribution of the study remains implicit rather than being sharply reiterated and connected back to the reviewed literature.

Suggestions:

• Clearly frame the contribution as providing new insights specifically for Polish families in Ireland.
• Add a short synthesis paragraph at the end of the literature review to restate the research gap and how the study addresses it.

2. Scope

The article fits well within the scope of the journal, aligning with interests in family language policy, multilingualism, language education, and migration contexts.

3. Significance

The findings are significant for understanding language practices within this community and offer valuable insights into FLP negotiation. However, the broader theoretical significance is more confirmatory than ground-breaking. The study usefully reinforces existing knowledge rather than fundamentally advancing it.

Suggestions:

• Emphasize the community-specific contribution more strongly.
• Frame the findings as both confirming known patterns and offering insights into an under-researched population.

4. Quality

The article is generally well-organized and clearly written. However, the discussion and conclusion are currently combined and would benefit from being separated. The discussion should link aims, findings, and literature; the conclusion should clearly state the study's specific contribution.

Suggestions:

• Separate the discussion and conclusion sections for better clarity and flow.

5. Scientific Soundness

The ethnographic design and qualitative data collection methods are appropriate.

However:

• The sample size in Phase 2 is quite small and should be acknowledged as a limitation.
• The article would benefit from a clearer explanation of steps taken to ensure trustworthiness (e.g., triangulation, reflexivity).
• Some framing issues arise. For example, the section on children's awareness of English dominance (p. 9) frames their experience as relating to the global prestige of English, but the following data reflect mainly pragmatic local reasons (ease of communication, competence). Adjusting the framing would better align evidence and interpretation.
• The use of "language socialisation" is technically accurate but somewhat overreaching. The study primarily explores language-related aspects of socialisation (language choice, competence, some language ideologies), not the full range of cultural or identity socialisation processes traditionally associated with the concept.

Suggestions:

• Clarify sample size limitations and trustworthiness measures.
• Reframe certain discussions to match the data more accurately.
• Acknowledge that the study focuses on language-related aspects of socialisation, not the broader cultural dimension.

6. Interest to the Readers

The article will interest readers in applied linguistics, multilingualism, migration studies, family language policy, and heritage language education. It provides useful empirical insights and reinforces the importance of considering the external societal context in FLP studies.

7. Overall Merit

The article offers a worthwhile and meaningful contribution. With minor revisions to improve framing, conceptual clarity, and structural organization, it will be well-suited for publication.

8. English Level

The English is clear and understandable. Minor stylistic improvements, such as avoiding repetitive phrasing and refining transitions, would further enhance the readability of the article.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) of this paper should be commended for their careful consideration of family language policy and how this impacts children whose first language is not Irish or English. I have made a number of comments and suggestions on the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a number of places where the writing could be improved. These have been marked in the attached PDF. I hope that these prove useful as there are always things that we can do to improve our academic prose.

Author Response

All the comments which were inserted into text boxes on the attached pdf have been addressed and welcomed. See response to comments within the pdf. We feel addressing these comments have improved the quality of the paper. All changes/amendments/additions relating to Reviewer 2 can be seen in yellow highlighted text within the revised paper. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf