Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

This study examines Spolsky’s tripartite family language policy framework of Bengali as a heritage language (HL) among intra-national immigrants in New York City (NYC).

Methods:

Data comprised a non-random purposive survey and semi-structured interviews. The survey data were analysed using descriptive and inferential analysis, and the interviews were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis. Recurring themes and selected excerpts were aligned with the survey results to highlight and conceptualise broader social patterns.

Results:

The findings indicate a generational shift from bilingualism to English-dominant monolingualism in Bangladeshi immigrant families. Parents ideologically preferred Bengali and supported bilingualism for cultural and intergenerational ties. However, they demonstrate a strong inclination towards English management while supplementing Bengali through home, educational and community strategies. Furthermore, children consistently preferred English across all domains of the framework. Barriers to HL maintenance included perceived limited relevance and value, constrained resources, assimilation pressure and parental insufficient awareness.

Conclusion:

This study suggests targeted support mechanisms to promote for HL maintenance in understudied NYC communities.

Keywords

Bengali–English bilingualism family language policy heritage language immigrant families intergenerational shift

Introduction

Recently, there has been an increase of interest in the family language policy (FLP) of Bangladeshi immigrations in different countries (e.g., Afreen & Norton, 2022; Al-Azami, 2005, 2014; Bhattacharya & Sinha, 2025; Bose et al., 2024; Ferro, 2025; Kolancali et al., 2024; Rasinger, 2013; Subhan, 2007). Traditionally, Bangladesh has historically experienced substantial outward migration (Bossavie, 2022; Gardner, 2009). Individuals are often motivated to migrate internationally for a higher standard of living, better education, health care and economic stability. Moreover, they want to avoid the political instability, insecurity and systemic corruption in Bangladesh (Shafiq, 2016). However, they face the dual challenge of English proficiency for social integration and mobility in New York City (NYC) while preserving their heritage language (HL) amid pressures of assimilation. In this case, parents’ FLP also often involves finding an (im)balance between learning the dominant language(s) of the host country and/or preserving the HL. Assimilation pressure is one of the main instruments of language shift / change at both micro-and macro-levels (Fishman, 1965). As multilingual families have become more predominant alongside international migration and the development of transnational identities, the role of HL maintenance has become an increasingly important area of scholarly inquiry (Blommaert, 2010; Lukose, 2007). FLP provides a framework for explaining HL use by showing how families negotiate their ideologies, management and practices under multiple pressures (A. S. Canagarajah, 2008; Curdt-Christiansen, 2009; Fogle & King, 2013; Schwartz, 2010). It also depends on socioeconomic conditions, demographic distribution, representation in the media and education and government policies (Cavallaro, 2010; Clyne, 1982, 1991; Kloss, 1966; Pauwels, 2016).

The term heritage language used in this study refers to a language that is historically and culturally associated with a particular community and transmitted across generations (Blake & Zyzik, 2003; Boon & Polinsky, 2015), often in contexts where it is no longer the dominant language of daily communication. This term is preferred over alternatives such as old language or ancient language because it emphasises sociocultural continuity, identity affiliation and intergenerational transmission rather than perceived age or historical distance. Moreover, HL is widely used in sociolinguistic and applied linguistic scholarship to describe languages maintained by minority or diasporic communities, providing conceptual precision and alignment with existing research (Boon & Polinsky, 2015; Lipińska & Seretny, 2012; Montrul, 2016; Valdés, 2000).

Bangladeshi immigrants in the US are a rapidly growing community, estimated to be around 500,000 including both documented and undocumented individuals (Akhter & Yang, 2023). The first-generation are foreign-born individuals who migrate to a host country; the second generation consists of their children who are born, raised, educated and socialised there (Salas-Wright et al., 2014; Schneider, 2016). This generational distinction is particularly relevant for FLP research, as intergenerational differences often shape divergent language ideologies, practices and management strategies within immigrant families (Wąsikiewicz-Firlej & Daly, 2023).

While NYC is a major hub for migration hosting about 93,000 of Bangladeshis as of 2019 in the state (Budiman, 2021), existing research has paid limited attention to how Bangladeshi immigrant parents and children negotiate FLP in this specific sociolinguistic context. Although a considerable amount of research has been devoted to other countries, few attempts have been made to investigate Bangladeshi immigrants in the US. This study addresses this gap by examining FLP of Bangladeshi immigrant families in NYC, with a particular focus on how parents’ and children’s language ideologies, practices and management strategies respond to social and institutional pressures. By adopting a mixed-methods approach, the study aims to contribute to FLP scholarship by providing empirically grounded insights into intergenerational language negotiation and HL maintenance in an understudied community.

The remainder of this article is organised as follows: the next section reviews relevant literature on heritage language theory, ideology, practice and mangagement, and family language policy. Furthermore, it is followed by a description of the research design and methodology. The results section then presents the integrated quantitative and qualitative findings, after which the discussion and conclusion summarise the study’s contributions, implications, limitations and directions for future research.

Family language policy

FLP has become essential for exploring how HLs are negotiated across generations in transnational immigration. One of the first introductions was outlined by Luykx (2003) to address children as both agents and objects in the language-ecology in their families. Slavkov (2017) refers to FLP as ‘. . . explicit and implicit family rules, practices and ideologies about who speaks what language to whom in a household’ (p. 380). It is also defined as ‘. . . how a family views and organizes language use’ with a focus on decisions on children’s education (Hollebeke et al., 2020, p. 1). Thus FLPs, whether explicit or implicit, provide a framework for how language is used at home (Pagé & Noels, 2024). Studies on FLP thus examine both deliberate strategies and covert ideologically driven practices shaped by politics and culture (Caldas, 2012; Curdt-Christiansen, 2012, 2018). The family is a strong ‘socialising agent’ (Fogle & King, 2013) and a core actor in the transmission of HL to the next generation (Yagmur & Bohnacker, 2022). As language socialisation begins at home (Quay & Montanari, 2016), family strongly influences children’s language preferences (De Houwer, 2007; King & Fogle, 2006; Leung & Uchikoshi, 2012; Spolsky, 2012).

At the macro level, FLP is shaped by politics, social attitudes and economic factors, which influence whether families promote multilingualism and/or monolingual norms (Curdt-Christiansen & Sun, 2022; Heller, 2003). These forces also shape the linguistic environment and influence them whether they preserve their HL(s) or use dominant ones (Curdt-Christiansen, 2013). Besides, FLP at the micro-level is shaped by parents’ beliefs, socio-cultural experiences, political and economic factors (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009; Mirvahedi, 2021; Schwartz & Verschik, 2013). Thus, families act as mediators between individual and social practices by bridging the gap between the macro and micro levels.

The family is considered central to intergenerational language transmission and can either slow or accelerate language shifts (Fishman, 1991). ‘Intra-family factors’ include family structure, parental education, acculturation and emotional cohesion (Schwartz, 2010). Furthermore, ‘external influences’ from the extended family, community and nation which may change initial language-use decisions (Wąsikiewicz-Firlej & Daly, 2023). Bilingual families live in contexts that either support both languages (additive) or marginalise the HL (subtractive). Some of them rely mainly on the dominant language, others focus on the HL and many mix both, depending on family dynamics and social pressures (Deprez, 1994; Hélot, 2007). To balance language(s), they use strategies such as the ‘one person, one language’ (OPOL) approach, the earlier and most widely studied model (Baker, 2011; Barron-Hauwaert, 2004; Lanza, 1997/2004; Schwartz, 2020; Yamamoto, 2001) or the ‘minority language at home’ (MLAH) approach, often combined with time or place-based methods (Baker, 2011). Moreover, Mirvahedi and Hosseini (2023, p. 181) introduce the notion of ‘family language policy in retrospect’ to examine the long-term outcomes of parental ideologies, practices and management in shaping children’s linguistic development, thereby bridging synchronic and diachronic perspectives. This approach critiques snapshot accounts of translingual practices that overlook parents’ histories, aspirations, affective concerns, language power relations and the long-term implications for children’s language acquisition.

Spolsky’s (2004) model frames FLP as the interaction of ideologies, practices and management, which links parental beliefs, daily routines and the wider sociocultural context (see also King et al., 2008). However, his model has attracted several criticisms (Mueller, 2023). Although Spolsky (2009) acknowledges implicit policies, his emphasis on explicit management overlooks the covert choices (King & Fogle, 2017). Postmodernist studies challenge that his framework is overly rigid for multilingual family realities and, grounded in canonical epistemologies, may marginalise Global South perspectives (Hiratsuka & Pennycook, 2020; Lomeu Gomes, 2018). Despite this, it remains influential as a ‘structural, flexible, and expandable framework’ (Schwartz & Verschik, 2013: 4) and continues to guide diverse FLP studies (Mirvahedi & Hosseini, 2023).

HL ideologies, practices and management

Language ideologies (LI) are the ‘underlying force’ (Curdt-Christiansen, 2013) which shape parents’ beliefs and decisions about language use, negotiation of social pressures and migration-related challenges (e.g., schooling and cultural adaptation) and everyday practices (Curdt-Christiansen, 2013; De Houwer, 2007; King, 2000; Spolsky, 2004; Yagmur & Bohnacker, 2022; Yamamoto, 2001). Parents’ beliefs often indicate the instrumental value of dominant language(s) for mobility while mediating tensions between HL maintenance and host-society linguistic norms (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2007; Heller, 2003). For example, in English-dominant contexts, they may prioritise English for its perceived advantages, do mixed-language practices despite ideals of pure language and expect children to maintain the HL and cultural values while succeeding in the dominant language, often creating tensions around identity and loyalty (Curdt-Christiansen, 2016; Tannenbaum & Howie, 2002; Verschik & Argus, 2023). These ideologies are not homogeneous; differences within families can lead to conflict or compromise as family members negotiate differing views on language use (Mirvahedi, 2021; Van Mensel, 2018). However, there is often a gap between parental HL and actual practices. LIs are closely intertwined with cultural and socio-political experiences. Kozminska and Hua (2020), for example, found that socio-political changes, such as Brexit, have shaped the ideologies of Polish-speaking immigrant families in the UK. Moreover, Zhu and Li (2016) examined how LI shapes immigrants’ identities and influences their sense of belonging in host culture.

Language practice (LP) refers to the actual use of language in daily family interactions, which may align with or diverge from parental ideologies and is shaped by the realities of the country (Verschik & Argus, 2023). Importantly, the long-term impact of such practices on children’s linguistic development is closely tied to emotions, an often-overlooked dimension in accounts that portray multilingual families as ‘simply translanguaging’ (Wiley & García, 2016, p. 59). In bilingual families, LPs vary, ranging from exclusive use of the dominant language or HL to mixed approaches (Deprez, 1994). Parental planning is pivotal for children’s bilingual development and minority-language maintenance (Yagmur & Bohnacker, 2022), yet it can also reconfigure family power relations as children gain proficiency in the dominant language (Lee, 1996). Nonetheless, maintaining sustainable HL practices is often difficult, as parents may switch between languages or face constraints from limited resources and external sociocultural pressures (Doyle, 2018).

Moreover, language management (LM) refers to strategies to promote specific language(s), such as fostering a supportive home environment, enrolling children in language classes and encouraging interaction with peers who share the same linguistic backgrounds (Spolsky, 2004). These efforts often involve conversational practices such as rephrasing, offering equivalents in the target language or correcting language use (Schwartz, 2020). In immigrant contexts, LM often focuses on schooling choices (e.g., monolingual or bilingual preschool) and home-based strategies, such as language rules, supplementary instruction and cultural immersion, sometimes through schools that support specific language(s) (Curdt-Christiansen, 2013, 2018; Kheirkhah, 2016; Schwartz & Moin, 2012). In interethnic or immigrant families, these strategies often adapt to conflicting linguistic and cultural norms and require constant adjustment to changing circumstances (cf. Bacallao & Smokowski, 2007; I. J. Kim, Kim, & Kelly, 2006). For example, studies on Latvian and Kazakh families (Martena, 2023; Smagulova, 2017) have identified various discourse strategies used by parents to facilitate language transfer. Misalignments among ideology, management and practice often arise in response to social attitudes, national policies and economic pressures, and they emphasise FLP as a dynamic, context-dependent process (Curdt-Christiansen, 2016; Rahmadani, 2026; Spolsky, 2004; Moustaoui Srhir & Poveda, 2022).

Parents and children agency

Agency is defined as the ‘socioculturally mediated capacity to act’ (Ahearn, 2001, p. 112). FLP explains how parents and children negotiate their language use. Parents as ‘language managers’ (Spolsky, 2004, p. 8) are central policy actors in the immigrants’ home, with the authority to influence children’s LP. Parental agency (PA) is enacted through everyday language use, feedback and management strategies that may support bilingual development and minority-language maintenance (Fogle & King, 2013; Kheirkhah, 2016; Lanza & Lomeu Gomes, 2020; Mishina-Mori, 2011; Moustaoui Srhir, 2020; Spolsky, 2004, 2012). For immigrant families, while parents often navigate the tension on cultural preservation, they allow children to acquire dominant language(s) for socioeconomic reasons (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2007). Moreover, parents may try to achieve language goals by enforcing rules for language use, such as enrolling their children in language classes or encouraging cultural immersion (cf. Curdt-Christiansen, 2016). However, external pressures (social) and internal motivations (individual) often influence PA decisions. Parents with greater educational and linguistic resources may prioritise the institutional language over HL transmission and reflect how their goals, backgrounds and resources influence families (Hollebeke et al., 2022; Ren & Hu, 2013; Schwartz & Verschik, 2013).

Besides, children may not follow their parents’ language beliefs. Their daily language choices often favour the dominant language(s), leading parents to adjust their FLP, especially when multilingual goals are not supported by consistent management (Gyogi, 2015; Lanza, 2004/1997; Luykx, 2005; Maseko, 2022; Pagé & Noels, 2024; Tang & Calafato, 2025). Child agency (CA) is further strengthened through parent–child collaboration and sibling influence and is expressed in both resistant and compliant HL practices (cf. Bridges & Hoff, 2014; Fogle & King, 2013; Little, 2023; Paradis et al., 2021; Rojas et al., 2016; Sorenson Duncan & Paradis, 2020; Tsinivits & Unsworth, 2021).

Heritage language: theory and practice

The term HL is ‘conceptually and operationally challenging’ (Blake & Zyzik, 2003, p. 523). Boon and Polinsky (2015) define it as ‘an ethnic or immigrant minority language which is the weaker of a bilingual speaker’s two languages. Heritage speakers feel a cultural or family connection to their HL, but their most proficient language is the one that is dominant in their community’ (p. 1). This term emerged in the 1990s in US and Canadian educational literature and policy to describe ‘non-mainstream languages’ spoken by communities whose ancestors predated the establishment of these nations or migrated later (Valdés, 2001; Wiley, 2014). It is also defined as ‘the language a person regards as their native, home, or ancestral language’ and closely tied to cultural and emotional attachment (Richards & Schmidt, 2013, p. 259). Later, the definition has expanded to include minority or non-social languages. HL is a contested, ideologically loaded concept that may marginalise some linguistic identities (Cummins, 2005; Verschik, 2014). They are also called minority languages spoken by ethnolinguistic communities in contexts where a dominant or official language prevails, often with limited prestige and institutional support, resulting in uneven speaker proficiency (Romanowski, 2021a). Many studies suggest alternatives such as ‘home language’ or ‘community language’ to emphasise practical and family use (Baker & Jones, 1998; Corson, 1999; Schalley & Eisenchlas, 2020; Wiley, 2001, 2005; Yeung et al., 2000).

HL usually refers to an immigrant language passed down across generations in Canada and the US (cf. Montrul, 2020; Polinsky, 2018; Rothman, 2009). In the US, schools and other institutions often encourage second-generation children to use English, which may limit their opportunities to develop the HL at home and receive little support outside the family. So, many children quickly shift to English and gradually lose proficiency in the HL (Boon & Polinsky, 2015; Brown, 2011; Lipińska & Seretny, 2012; Montrul, 2016; Valdés, 2000). Moreover, Polinsky and Scontras (2020) found that HLs are characterised by the time of acquisition, socio-political factors and the dominance of the language.These categories help explain the experience of HL speakers and the challenges associated with them. Fishman (2001, p. 81) argues that ethnolinguistic maintenance in the US is long-standing and as of identifies three types of HLs: indigenous (e.g., Native American languages, many endangered but supported by revitalisation efforts such as Navajo and Hawaiian), colonial (e.g., Dutch, German and French, maintained in enclaves such as Amish German and Louisiana French) and immigrant (associated with more recent migration, e.g., Mandarin, Korean and Hindi), with Spanish uniquely spanning both colonial and immigrant histories (McCarty, 2002).

Immigrant HLs maintenance often diverge from homeland norms under host-language influence and may develop hybrid forms shaped by both contexts (Polinsky, 2018; Scontras et al., 2015). HLs are typically used primarily in the home and linked to cultural identity, with HL speakers raised in households where a non-dominant language fosters varying degrees of bilingualism (Valdés, 2000; Van Deusen-Scholl, 2003). According to the classification of Fishman (2001, p. 81), Bengali in the US can be categorised as ‘an immigrant heritage language’. HL maintenance is especially important for immigrant families and communities because sustaining the HL supports the preservation of cultural and ethnic identity, values and traditions in many cases (Brown, 2011; Escudero et al., 2023; Shin, 2023).

Bengali as a heritage language

Efforts to maintain Bengali as a HL in NYC have emerged through public school programmes, community-led initiatives and advocacy for dual-language instruction to preserve cultural identity and bilingualism. Bengali is the third most frequently reported home language among students identified as English learners in NYC public schools (Choudhury, 2012). PS 7 Louis F. Simeone (Elmhurst, Queens) launched NYC’s first primary-level Bengali dual-language programme in 2018 (Woodward, 2018). Though HL establishment is expanding, definitional ambiguity complicates curricula, pedagogy and assessment. Bengali bilingual programmes are further constrained by shortages of certified Bengali-speaking teachers, school–family–community collaboration and community-based Bengali schools (Choudhury, 2012; Kern-Jedrychowska, 2017; Michael-Luna, 2015; cf. Wąsikiewicz-Firlej & Daly, 2023). Where available, such programmes may support biliteracy, home–school engagement and cultural continuity under assimilation pressures (Choudhury, 2012; Kern-Jedrychowska, 2017; Michael-Luna, 2015).

Moreover, studies of Bengali as a HL in different countries show diverse commitment, but (un)equal support for maintaining it. For example, in the UK, parents use languages differently depending on the activity and often lack resources and HL opportunities, which limits participation in support programmes (Kolancali et al., 2024). Longitudinal evidence also shows that children may shift quickly to English and lose active Bengali use when Bengali-speaking locations and pro-heritage attitudes are weak, even though community identity can remain strong (Al-Azami, 2014). In Canada, Bengali HL teaching is presented as transcultural work that goes beyond classroom instruction (Afreen & Norton, 2022). In Australia, digitally ‘networked’ FLP highlights how dispersed relatives and emotional ties shape maintenance (Bose et al., 2024). In Singapore, ‘Bengaliness’ is described as a negotiated identity sustained through everyday cultural practices within a managed multicultural setting (Bhattacharya & Sinha, 2025). In Venice, Italian is widely viewed as necessary but is unevenly accessible due to gender and work constraints, while Bengali remains important for transnational ties, reinforcing calls for stronger multilingual and minority-language policy (Ferro, 2025).

Research design

This study used a convergent parallel mixed-method, cross-sectional design with a survey and semi-structured interviews (Bergman, 2008; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Cummings, 2017; Spradley, 1979). A convergent design was selected to allow simultaneous collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, enabling comparison and triangulation of findings across methodological strands. It was theoretically guided by Spolsky’s tripartite FLP model (ideologies, practices and management) for its compatibility to examine intergenerational negotiation of both parents and children (Spolsky, 2004). Each component of the framework directly informed the formulation of the research questions, data collection instruments, analytical and interpretive procedures. Specifically, language ideologies guided questions related to beliefs and attitudes. Language practices shaped items concerning everyday language use across home, digital and social domains. Language management related to parental strategies, rules and deliberate interventions.

This framework was selected over alternative FLP or domain-based approaches because it allows for an integrated analysis of beliefs, behaviours and strategies within the same analytical model. Unlike frameworks that focus primarily on interactional practices or domain-specific language use, Spolsky’s model facilitates interpretation of how ideological commitments translate into everyday practices and management efforts, a distinction that proved critical for explaining the intergenerational discrepancies identified in the findings.

The qualitative inquiry positioned a relativist ontology (Hugly & Sayward, 1987) and an interpretivist epistemology (Sol & Heng, 2022), foregrounding participants’ subjective experiences and emphasising contextual variation in perceptions, while remaining axiologically value-laden through culturally sensitive and reflexive interpretation of narratives (Bishop & Shepherd, 2011). In contrast, the quantitative inquiry maintained an axiology of value neutrality, as the survey focused on measuring collective attitudes towards HL. Ontologically grounded in critical realism (Bhaskar, 2008) and epistemologically aligned with positivism (Adams et al., 2005), the quantitative inquiry relied on systematic observation to produce generalisable patterns and inferential insights. Guided by the research aim, this study addressed the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1: How do Bangladeshi immigrant parents and their children differ in their language ideologies, practices and management?

RQ2: What motivations, strategies and challenges do parents have in their heritage language management?

The first research question examines how intergenerational divergences of parents and their children in language use across domains and deliberate efforts to regulate language choice, thereby capturing the internal dynamics of FLP. The second research question focuses on parents’ perspectives by investigating the motivations, strategies and challenges involved in transmitting Bengali as a heritage language. This question aims to uncover the affective, cultural and practical considerations shaping parental language management. Moreover, the structural and institutional constraints that limit heritage language management in an English-dominant environment. Together, these questions enable a comprehensive analysis of how family-level language decisions interact with broader social pressures to shape HL outcomes.

Methods

Participants

Participants were recruited using criterion-based sampling where demographic variation ensured sample diversity and representativeness (Bryman, 2016). Inclusion criteria required participants to be members of intra-marriage Bangladeshi immigrant families residing in NYC (Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens), with at least one child. Ethical compliance was ensured with informed consent and confidentiality (Patton, 2015).

Table 1 shows a parent-dominant sample and with a female majority in both parents and children cohorts. The two groups have distinct life-stage and educational profiles, supporting a generational comparison. Participants come from multiple NYC boroughs, with parents more concentrated in Queens and children more evenly distributed across the boroughs. Table 2 provides the demographic profile of the semi-structured interviews with 30 parents (12 males; 18 females), who came from various socio-economic backgrounds. The spouses of all participants were also from Bangladeshi ethnic backgrounds. To minimise prestige bias, participation was voluntary and anonymous, and respondents were assured that there were no correct or preferred answers. Survey items were neutrally worded to reduce evaluative cues related to language practices and parental roles.

Table 1.

Demographic of participants of the survey.

	Parents (N = 71)			Children (N = 29)
Characteristic	Total	% (Within generation)		Total	% (Within generation)
Gender
Male (n = 33)	25	35.2		8	27.6
Female (n = 67)	46	64.8		21	72.4
Educational Background
Primary	8	11.3		17	58.6
Lower Secondary	20	28.2		12	41.4
Upper Secondary	25	35.2		0	0
University and/or higher	18	25.4		0	0
Residency
Brooklyn	12	16.9		12	41.4
Bronx	22	31.0		4	13.8
Queens	37	52.1		13	44.8
	Mean	SD	Range	Mean	SD	Range
Age	40.63	18.66	20–70	10.55	.736	9–18

Table 2.

Socio-demographic profile of interviews participants (anonymous).

Pseudonym	Duration in living in the US and Age	How many children?/children’s ages	Region of residence	Occupation	Language(s) at home
Sheema Tasnim Rakib Rima Zayed Mahira Siam Anika Tanvir Jannat Ayesha Najma Sharmin Hasan Sabila Jubair Lubna Tahmid Nusrat Ria Sumaiya Farhan Rihana Mahin Mohin Ashik Naima Arif Imran Faria	10 (35) 11 (40) 12 (27) 8 (24) 8 (48) 10 (29) 3 (45) 11 (30) 11 (47) 30 (45) 15 (36) 8 (27) 6 (35) 7 (42) 1 (37) 6 (42) 9 (32) 12 (28) 8 (31) 3 (27) 10 (35) 13 (30) 14 (28) 1 (32) 19 (44) 2 (37) 23 (35) 10 (36) 11 (35) 12 (34)	2(5,12) 3(4,8,13) 1(12) 2(3,7) 2(6,10) 1(11) 2(4,14) 2(3,10) 2(6,12) 1(13) 3(5,9) 1(7) 2(10,14) 3(4,6,11) 1(15) 2(8,13) 2(10,14) 1(6) 3(7,9,12) 1(8) 2(5,15) 2(6,14) 2(7,9) 2(7,10) 3(4,8,11) 1(14) 2(5,13) 2(9,11) 1(10) 2(6,12)	Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Bronx Bronx Brooklyn Queens Queens Queens Bronx Queens Queens Bronx Brooklyn Queens Brooklyn Queens Brooklyn Queens Queens Queens Queens Queens Bronx Queens Bronx Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx	Teachers Stay-at-home mother IT professional Caregiver Taxi drivers Teacher Grocery store clerks Health workers Restaurant workers Administrative Staff Retail workers Office assistants Hospitality workers Small business owners Bilingual teachers Delivery personnel Social workers Construction workers Stay-at-home mother Seamstresses Office assistants Community workers Caregiver IT professionals Small business owners Engineering Professionals Health workers Restaurant workers Caregiver Social workers	Bengali, English, Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English, Arabic Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English, Spanish Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English Bengali, English

Data collection and analysis

The survey questionnaire was adapted from both Bezcioğlu-Göktolga and Yagmur (2022) and Romanowski (2021a) for Bangladeshi immigrants living in NYC. These instruments were selected due to their prior validation in FLP research and conceptual alignment with Spolsky’s framework. It was provided with two sets (one for parents, one for children) in both English and Bengali which required approximately 15 minutes to answer. To reduce acquiescence bias, (5-point Likert-type scale) items were adapted from established instruments and reviewed for balanced phrasing and clarity across both language versions.

The participants were encouraged to include their families (i.e., spouse and children) to ensure a broader representation of their FLP. The survey (n = 100) was conducted using a non-random purposive sampling strategy to reflect the patterns of intra-marriage Bangladeshi families with at least one child. Moreover, interview participants (n = 30) were recruited from the pool of survey respondents using a combination of snowball and convenience sampling. While this facilitated access to a hard-to-reach immigrant population, potential sampling bias is acknowledged and addressed through methodological triangulation. To enhance transparency regarding representativeness, it is acknowledged that the use of non-random and network-based sampling may have overrepresented socially connected families, thereby limiting generalisability. Interviews were audio recorded, then transcribed using ‘intelligent transcription’ (Eftekhari, 2024) to ensure accuracy and efficiency. The transcripts were then forward translated into English.

Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistical procedures (means and percentages), followed by independent-samples t-tests to assess generational differences between parents and children. Qualitative data were analysed using ‘reflexive thematic analysis’ (Braun et al., 2023). The analytical process involved data familiarisation, followed by deductive coding based on the predefined FLP components. Within these deductive codes were used to accommodate emergent nuances within each FLP domain. Theme construction and review were conducted to ensure internal coherence and clear alignment with the theoretical framework.

Although reflexive thematic analysis does not prioritise statistical inter-coder reliability. The transcripts were independently and manually coded by the researcher through iterative comparison to enhance analytical rigour and conceptual consistency. Reflexive memos were maintained throughout the process to document analytical decisions, theoretical alignment and researcher positionality. Interview excerpts presented in the Results section were selected based on their representativeness, clarity and explanatory value.

Finally, although self-report measures are inherently susceptible to self-deception bias, the use of previously validated survey instruments and triangulation with qualitative interview data strengthened construct interpretation. Accordingly, findings were integrated using a mixed-methods comparison matrix (Haynes-Brown, 2024) that systematically aligned qualitative themes with quantitative patterns to enable cross-strand triangulation and interpretive convergence. Both survey and interview data were collected concurrently over three months in late 2024.

Results

Scale characteristics of the questionnaires

Table 3 shows an implementation gap in ideology, with strong endorsement of HL maintenance (M = 4.22) but in LP, near-midpoint daily use (M = 3.08) and only occasional LM for Bengali (M = 2.93) and English (M = 2.99) . Attitudes are mixed (school M = 2.89; society M = 3.48), and reliability is generally adequate (α = .71–.93) except for maintenance (α = .63) and societal attitudes (α = .67).

Table 3.

Scale characteristics.

			Number of items	M (SD)	A
Language Ideologies	Language Beliefs	Beliefs about the language preference	5	3.55 (1.31)	.93
	Language Beliefs	Reasons for Heritage Language Maintenance	5	4.22 (.48)	.63
	Language attitudes	School’s attitudes towards HL	4	2.89 (.66)	.71
	Language attitudes	Society’s attitudes towards Bengali	5	3.48 (.49)	.67
Language practices		HL practice in family	5	3.58 (1.41)	.88
Language practices		HL preference in daily life	5	3.08 (1.52)	.92
Language management		Language management of Bengali	5	2.93 (.85)	.73
Language management		Language management of English	5	2.99 (1.38)	.93

Note. Language practice & Beliefs: 1 = Only English, 2 = Mostly English, 3 = Both Bengali and English equally, 4 = Mostly Bengali, 5 = Only Bengali; Language Attitudes & Maintenance: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree. Language Management: 1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always.

To enhance interpretive clarity, quantitative survey results are reported first to establish general patterns and group differences. Furthermore, the qualitative interview of parents used to contextualise, explain and deepen interpretation of those patterns.

Language ideology

Among Bangladeshi immigrants in NYC, LI was conceptualised as a multidimensional construct encompassing language beliefs (preferences and maintenance of Bengali at home) and language attitudes (social and institutional positionings).

Table 4 provides convergent evidence of a generational shift in HL ideology. As can be seen, parents report Bengali-oriented preferences and stronger maintenance orientations than children, with significant group differences for HL preference and maintenance (p < .001). By contrast, school and societal attitudes show no group differences (p > .05). Interview accounts align with these trends by linking HL attrition to English-dominant school/public domains and by highlighting parental enforcement as a key strategy. These findings indicating an intergenerational ideological divergence within the same families. Parents conceptualise Bengali as a symbolic resource tied to identity, heritage and transnational belonging as, Mahira highlighted that the Bengali is a vital strategy for preserving and maintaining cultural roots. However, children evaluate language primarily through everyday communicative utility within English-dominant school and peer environments.

Table 4.

Mixed-methods comparison matrix for HL ideologies.

Domains	Survey	interview
Language beliefs
HL preference	Comfortable language speaking at home: P: (Mostly Bengali) 4.67 [0.55] & C: (Mostly English) 2.66 [0.77]Perception of Bilingual practice: P: (Bilingual) 3.86 [1.15] & C: (English only) 1.14 [0.35]Interaction preference: P: (Mostly Bengali) (C→P), 4.42 [0.77]; C: (English only) (P→C) 1.28 [0.70]Interaction preference for other family members,Inside home: P: (Prefer mostly Bengali) 4.56 [0.86]; C: (Prefer English only) 1.62 [0.94]Outside-home: P:(Bilingualism)3.77 [1.23]; C: (Mostly English) 2.10 [1.01]	Tasnim: . . . use of Bengali is declining among the younger generation in the diaspora. Arif: I am interested in speaking Bengali with my children at home. However, since they have to speak in English naturally at school or outside, they lose interest in speaking Bengali once they return home.
t-test: Parents > Children, t(98) = 17.79, p < .001, d = 0.64; P: 4.28 (0.70), C: 1.76 (0.44); 95% CI [4.13, 4.43].
HL maintenance	Importance of preserving HL: (Both strongly agree) P: 4.82 [0.39], C: 4.45 [0.91]HL is significant for: Identity (Both strongly agree): P: 4.70 [0.57], C: 4.45 [0.91]Cultural practices: (Parents strongly agree and children moderately agree) P: 4.86 [0.89], C: 3.26 [0.58]Connection to BD:(Parents strongly agree and Chidren moderately disagree) P: 4.31 [0.57], C: 2.83[0.38](Connection to native community in NYC: (Parents moderately agree and Chidren moderately disagree) P: 3.41 [0.94] C: 2.52 [1.48]	Mahira: I am a Bengali by birth, so I have no difficulty speaking fluent Bengali. Although my daughter was born in America, she can speak Bengali because she is required to speak it at home. In fact, I compel her to speak in Bengali. Otherwise, children risk becoming disconnected from the cultural heritage, traditions and identity associated with Bangladesh.
t-test: Parents > Children, t(98) = 8.44, p < .001, d = 0.36; P: 4.42 (0.29), C: 3.74 (0.52); 95% CI [4.33, 4.51].
Linguistic attitudes
School	School (authority-level tolerance): Patents are allowed in Bengali: (Strongly agree)4.18 [0.87]School (peer/teacher support):Schoolyard HL encouragement: (Moderately disagree) 2.63 [1.30]Teacher appreciation of HL: (Strongly disagree) 1.75 [1.27]Teacher recognition of HL: (Moderately disagree) 2.23 [1.60]	Rakib: One of the biggest barriers to practicing the mother tongue is the environment. Many children start speaking in Bengali, but as they grow a little older, they stop wanting to use it and gradually become less comfortable with it. This happens mainly when they start school. The language of school is English. They get so used to speaking English with their friends and teachers that, over time, they can no longer speak Bengali at all.
t-test: t(98) = −0.77, p = .440, d = 0.66; P: 2.86 [0.74], C: 2.97 [0.42]; 95% CI [−0.36, 0.15]
Society	Bengali services in healthcare: (Moderately agree) 3.17 [0.87]Common public opinion reflected:Respect for HL: (Moderately agree) 3.45 [0.67];Respect for culture: (Strongly agree) 4.10 [1.14]English socioeconomic dominance: (Strongly agree) 4.82 [0.50];Local-authority support for HL maintenance: (Strongly disagree) 1.90 [1.02]	Farhan: Nowadays, the use of Bengali in service-orientated institutions in New York City, particularly in hospitals, schools and buses and trains, has noticeably increased. Even during elections, Bengali is now used on ballot papers, which is a source of joy for the Bangladeshi community and also strengthens Bangladesh’s prestige in this society.
t-test: t(98) = 1.15, p = .252, d = 0.49; P: 3.52 [0.46], C: 3.40 [0.56]; 95% CI [−0.09, 0.34],

Note. BD = Bangladesh; Values are M [SD]; P= parents; C = children; scale: 1 = Only English, 2 = Mostly English, 3 = Both Bengali and English equally, 4 = Mostly Bengali, 5 = Only Bengali; 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree.

Language practice

Table 5 shows a consistent, cross-domain generational difference in LP. As can be seen, parents largely maintain Bengali in the family and attempt to sustain bilingual interaction with their children, whereas children’s LP are English-dominant in routine home communication and wider family networks, possibly a shift from their HL towards English. For instance, Zayed’s experience demonstrates how the LP in diasporic families can change significantly over time. This can affect effective communication in HL with their parents and grandparents, thus creating intergenerational linguistic gaps in HL transmission. The same pattern exists in digital and cognitive domains, where children’s LP is overwhelmingly English-oriented. Online and peer-mediated environments reinforce English as the default language. There are very limited opportunities to use Bengali in school, friend circles and social media. It describes communicative breakdowns when parents attempt Bengali-only interaction.

Table 5.

Mixed-methods comparison matrix for HL Practices.

Domains	Survey	Interview
Within the family	Parents used Bengali with their own parents: P: 4.48 [1.02]Children used English with parents: C: 1.55 [0.90]Parent–child communication (parents’ report): 4.65 [0.95]Sibling interaction: P: (HL-oriented) 4.31 [1.06];C: (English-oriented) 1.41 [0.73]Family gatherings: P: 4.34 [1.27]; C: 2.45 [1.06]Child–grandparents communication (children’s report): (English oriented) 1.41 [0.73]	Zayed: My child cannot speak Bengali at all. The older one can speak a little, but the younger one cannot speak it at all. . . . I cannot even communicate with my child in Bengali. I have tried, but if I don’t speak in English, the child barely responds.
t-test: Parents > Children, t(98) = 13.46, p < .001, d = 0.83; P: 4.30 (0.87), C: 1.82 (0.74); 95% CI [2.14, 2.79]
Digital and cognitive domains	Parents (balanced bilingual): social media 3.90 [1.16]; texting 3.62 [1.36];online reading 3.68 [1.31];postings 3.68 [1.30];thinking 3.73 [1.25]Children (English-dominant): social media 1.55 [0.91];texting 1.55 [0.91];commenting 1.55 [0.91];online reading 1.28 [0.07];thinking 1.55 [0.91]	Asik: We have to constantly use Bengali at home and even outside, when we see someone from Bangladesh. But due to the different language situation, they [children] are not getting the opportunity to use Bengali. In school, among friends, social media and in the surrounding environment, English language learning materials are scattered everywhere.
t-test: Parents > Children, t(98) = 8.82, p < .001, d = 1.14; P: 3.72 (1.25), C: 1.49 (0.83); 95% CI [1.68, 2.74]

Note. LP = language practice; Values are M [SD]; P= parents; C = children; scale: 1 = Only English, 2 = Mostly English, 3 = Both Bengali and English equally, 4 = Mostly Bengali, 5 = Only Bengali.

Language management

Table 6 shows that HL management is mainly parent-driven, while English mostly is more child-driven; both contrasts are statistically significant. Interview excerpts of Hasan demonstrate that language management operates asymmetrically across generations: while parents actively invest in Bengali through structured practices and media exposure, children’s English development is reinforced both at home and institutionally through schooling. Interview data further suggest that Bengali management requires deliberate and sustained parental intervention, whereas English acquisition occurs organically through environmental exposure, reinforcing unequal effort across languages.

Table 6.

Mixed-methods comparison matrix for LM.

Survey	Interview
HL management
Bengali LM: watching Bengali films/TV: P 4.31 [1.04] & C 2.52, [1.43];Bengali songs: P 3.89 [ .57] & C 2.52 [1.43];HL learning activities: P: 3.72 [1.01] & C 2.66 [1.51]Parental correction of mispronunciation: P 2.25 [0.91] & C 2.66 [1.52];Parental involvement helping with HL tasks: P 1.72 [1.22] & C 1.41 [1.05]	Nusrat: Both of my children were born in the United States, yet they speak Bengali fluently. They attend online Bengali classes three times a week and consistently communicate in Bengali at home. In addition, they speak with relatives in Bangladesh almost every day, which helps sustain their regular practice and proficiency in the language.
t-test: Parents > Children, t(98) = 4.82, p < .001, d = 0.77; P: 3.17 (0.45), C: 2.35 (1.24); 95% CI [0.48, 1.19]
English management
English LM: watching English films/TV: P 3.39 [1.41] & C 3.86, [.35];English songs: P 3.13 [ 1.15] & C 4.00 [0.00];English learning activities: P: 3.44 [1.12] & C 5.00 [0.00]Parental correction of mispronunciation: P 3.14 [0.90] & C 3.31 [0.47];Parental involvement helping with HL tasks: P 3.42 [1.49] & C 5.00 [0.00]	Hasan: Because parents play a strong role in teaching their children English, the kids more or less pick it up early on. Then, once they start school, they become fully proficient in English. And since they live in America, being good at English is actually very important for them.
t-test: Children > Parents, t(98) = −5.49, p < .001, d = 0.77; P: 3.30 (0.91), C: 4.07 (1.18); 95% CI [-1.27, -0.59]

Note. LM= Language Management; Values are M[SD]; P = parents; C = children; scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always.

Overall, there are substantial differences between parents’ and children’s responses because of different reasons, even within the same families. For examples, parents’ views are shaped by symbolic and affective motivations, as shown by their strong support for HL maintenance (M = 4.42) and their preference for Bengali as central to identity and cultural continuity (M = 4.28). This explains parents’ efforts to manage Bengali at home through media use and structured learning activities (M = 3.17). In contrast, children relate to language mainly through daily functional needs shaped by English-dominant schooling, peer interaction and digital environments, reflected in their strong preference for English (M = 1.76), through practice at home (M = 1.82), and cognitive and digital domains (M = 1.49). These differences lead to contrasting attitudes and practices.

Within this framework, LM functions as a mediating mechanism between ideology and practice. Parental commitment to Bengali through overt management strategies. However, children’s English language development is supported largely through covert and ambient management.

Motivations, strategies & challenges

Table 7. presents the interview findings on parents’ motivations and strategies for transmitting the HL to their children, as well as the challenges they encounter in a multicultural society where English is the dominant language.

Table 7.

Motivations, strategies & Challenges to HL management.

Statements	n	%
Motivations of HL
Cultural and Identity Preservation
Preserving Bengali identity and fostering cultural pride	23	76.67%
Celebrating cultural festivals and traditions	19	63.33%
Preserving linguistic rights and historical awareness.	7	23.33%
Resisting cultural marginalisation	2	6.67%
Family and Social Connections
Facilitating communication with older generations.	10	33.33%
Connecting children to cultural roots.	14	46.67%
Maintaining economic and social ties with Bangladesh.	26	86.67%
Building community bonds and cultural hubs.	21	70%
Facilitating religious practices and community activities.	9	30%
Educational and Practical Benefits
Enhancing bilingual cognitive and academic skills.	5	16.67%
Supporting bilingual career opportunities.	12	40%
Strategies of HL
Family and Home-Based Strategies
Encouraging Bengali communication at home	12	40%
Forcing children to use Bengali	1	3.33%
Teaching Bengali through storytelling	7	23.33%
Bengali-language apps for literacy	9	30%
Bengali media (e.g. Bengali film, Song & TV shows)	5	16.66%
Maintaining regular communication with relatives in Bangladesh	17	56.66%
Encouraging trips to Bangladesh for cultural immersion	21	70%
Correcting their children’s use of Bengali	19	63.33%
Avoid responding in English	8	26.66%
Pretending not to listen to English	1	3.33%
Educational Strategies
Reading/writing Bengali	5	16.66%
Participating in dual-language public school programmes	2	6.66%
Sending children to community-run Bengali schools	6	20%
Attend online Bengali classes	2	6.66%
Writing and working on the Bengali language assignments	7	23.33%
Community and Cultural Strategies
Organising cultural and linguistic events in community hubs	2	6.66%
Engaging children in cultural festivals and traditions	17	56.66%
Involving children in Bangladeshi cultural activities	22	73.33%
Facilitating religious practices in Bengali	9	30%
Challenges of HL
Perception and Attitude-Related Reasons
Perceived irrelevance (social and institutional) of Bengali in the US	3	10%
Focus on English for academic and social success	17	56.67%
Stigma associated with bilingual education	9	30%
Cultural inferiority complex	2	6.66%
Practical and Resource Constraints
Lack of time and resources	6	20%
Limited opportunities for Bengali use	13	43.33%
Ambition with different language	5	16.66%
The limited presence of Bengali teachers	7	23.33%
Social and External Influences
Assimilation pressures	8	26.67%
Parental misconceptions about English acquisition	1	3.33%
Insufficient awareness of heritage language benefits	3	10%

Note: Data driven from the interviews (n = 30).

As can be seen, participants’ HL motivations are guided mainly by cultural identity and social relationships, rather than academic or career-related benefits. They regard Bengali as a key to culture, resource and bond with maintaining community and a sense of belonging within the native immigrants. Moreover, they primarily depend on family-and-community based strategies. For example, they focus on increasing Bengali use at home, maintaining regular contact with relatives and involving children in cultural events that encourage Bengali use. In contrast, formal educational support is mentioned less frequently and is generally seen as an additional resource rather than the main pathway for maintenance. At the same time, English is widely seen as necessary for school success and social integration, which reduces children’s opportunities and willingness to use Bengali. Participants also report broader constraints, including stigma around bilingualism, pressures to assimilate and limited institutional resources, such as a lack of Bengali teachers and structured learning opportunities.

Discussion

Intergenerational language ideology and institutional constraints

In the USA, while first-generation immigrant parents strongly preferred and maintained Bengali at home, their second-generation immigrant children showed a strong preference for English in public and virtual spaces. Most parents are more comfortable speaking Bengali at home, although they generally practise bilingualism (Bengali and English) at home and outside. They also want their children to speak Bengali at home, as they strongly believe this will preserve their cultural identity with solidarity, pride, resistance, a legacy of resilience, social cohesion among immigrants and maintain connections with older generations (Andaleeb et al., 2022; Chatterji, 2016; Creese & Blackledge, 2011; Hajjaj, 2022).

However, positive beliefs about HL use alone are insufficient to ensure its maintenance (cf. Park & Sarker, 2007). The parents also agreed that bilingual proficiency in English and Bengali is beneficial for cognitive development and future career opportunities for their children. Both parents and children agreed that there were few or no opportunities to communicate and study in Bengali in public schools in NYC. Teachers expect from immigrant students to use only English, which make students feel linguistic inadequacy (cf. Bezcioglu-Göktolga & Yagmur, 2022). However, there is a moderately positive attitude towards Bengali in NYC (especially in certain health care and public services). Lack of sufficient institutional support and the necessity of English for jobs make Bengali less valuable. Children choose English as their first language and Spanish and/or Arabic as second languages. Generational gaps between immigrant parents and children can vary HL acquisition in Anglophone countries (Carreira & Kagan, 2011). Moreover, limited knowledge of Bengali among children may detach from their cultural heritage.

The differences between parents’ and children’s responses arise from how they experience language differently within the same families. Parents view Bengali as a symbol of identity, culture and connection to Bangladesh, which explains their strong support for heritage language maintenance and their efforts to use Bengali at home, such as requiring children to speak Bengali, using Bengali media and arranging language classes. Children, however, experience English as the main language of schools, friends and online activities, and therefore see English as more useful and natural for everyday communication, even at home. These different experiences shape attitudes and practices in clear ways. Parents see English-dominant schools and public spaces as obstacles to maintaining Bengali, while children see these spaces as central to their social lives, which leads them to prefer English in family interactions, with siblings and in digital contexts. As a result, a gap emerges between parents’ intentions and children’s actual language use, sometimes causing communication difficulties when parents insist on Bengali. Given that these differences appear within the same families, the findings show that heritage language shift is driven not by a lack of parental effort, but by children’s stronger exposure to English-dominant environments outside the home.

Language practice and management

Parents strongly prefer using Bengali exclusively with siblings and relatives in family gatherings. In contrast, most of the children, in these cases, speak in English. However, some of the children use both Bengali and English . Most grandparents cannot speak English, which creates communication barriers with their grandchildren. Moreover, most of the parents are bilingual in social media, text messaging, reading online content, commenting and posting. In contrast, most children exclusively use English in their social media, text messaging and academic work (cf. MacSwan, 2000; Porcel, 2006).

Parents use LM strategies at home, schooling and community, including using Bengali at home, engaging with media and family, participating in Bengali or dual-language programmes and literacy tasks and participating in cultural events and Bengali-mediated religious practices. Overall, they have a few structured and deliberate efforts to support Bengali (cf. Romanowski, 2021a, 2021b) Even when they value Bengali, they cannot always transmit it to children consistently. So, they often do bilingual practices with children that contribute to a gradual intergenerational decline in HL use (cf. Bayram et al., 2019). As LM is shaped by dominant-language norms (cf. Vallance, 2015), many children show limited interest in Bengali and a stronger preference for English, which further weakens parents’ efforts. Thus, Bengali has become less relevant in the US when they prioritise English for success. Moreover, parents’ strong focus on their children’s educational achievement in the interest of their career prospects was a key factor in FLP (Curdt-Christiansen, 2018; Schwartz, 2010).

LM is directly shaped by LI and enacted through everyday LP, rather than functioning as an autonomous domain. Parents’ LM decisions are ideologically motivated, particularly by strong beliefs about the HL as a core marker of cultural identity, intergenerational continuity and connection to Bangladesh, while children’s weaker alignment with these beliefs limits the effectiveness of such management. Empirically, LM appears both overt and covert: overt in explicit strategies such as mandating Bengali use at home, enrolling children in HL classes, correcting linguistic forms and regulating media exposure; and covert in parents’ implicit accommodation to English in school-related, digital and peer-oriented contexts, reflecting broader societal ideologies that prioritise English for educational and socioeconomic advancement. The relationship between LM and LI is therefore bidirectional: ideologies motivate management efforts, while persistent English-dominant practices in institutional and social domains simultaneously reshape parental management towards pragmatic bilingualism. Consequently, LM operates as a mediating and negotiated mechanism between beliefs and practices, rather than as a uniform or purely prescriptive process.

Comparative contexts

The US offers a distinct environment for Bangladeshi immigrants, though comparable patterns exist in immigrants in the UK and Canada. For example, Bangladeshi families in the UK also generally rely on generational transmission to preserve their HL. UK and US parents both may strengthen cultural and linguistic ties by taking their families on visits to Bangladesh and facilitating their children’s interactions with grandparents and extended family members (Chowdhury, 2019). Furthermore, both have also established cultural organisations and associations to preserve and celebrate their heritage which help preserve culture and provide social networks that promote the use of the HL (Ahmed, 2006; Carey & Shukur, 1985; Ghosh, 2006, 2007, 2014; Rahim, 1990, 2001; Rasinger, 2013; Subhan, 2007). As in NYC, parents in the UK and Canada also tend to use English as it is the dominant language for education and jobs, leading to the gradual loss of their HL (Al-Azami, 2005; Subhan, 2007; cf. Vallance, 2015). Supplementary Bengali schools in the UK, which help promote the HL, are often supported by local education authorities (Dixon & Wu, 2014; Johnstone, 2010).

Implications for HL support

The findings strongly indicate the need for more targeted, collaborative strategies for HL preservation in NYC, such as strengthening HL schools, promoting intergenerational language exchange and recognising the broader benefits of bilingualism (cf. Anderson et al., 2024; Bilgory-Fazakas & Armon-Lotem, 2025; Cangelosi et al., 2024; Dąbrowska, 2013; Murillo & Smith, 2011; Scontras et al., 2015; Valdés et al., 2008). Such strategies must address both practical constraints, such as limited time and resources, and shared attitudes that may undervalue or stigmatise HL use (Schecter, 2014). However, this parallel institutional support remains minimal in the US and varies considerably by region and school district. Recognising and celebrating Bengali as a HL can ensure linguistic diversity as a strength. Support from both communities and state policies is therefore key to keep Bengali across generations.

Conclusion

Ownership of HLs is relatively stronger among parents than their children because of the partial and inconsistent use of Bengali in both home and institutions. Initiatives to preserve this HL are fragmented and Bangladeshi immigrant children use HL in NYC to a very limited extent compared to many other communities. FLP plays a strong role in maintaining an HL, as it shapes the structure of children’s language development and acquisition (Cangelosi et al., 2024; King et al., 2008). The study recommends to incorporate explicit multilingual instruction in Bengali weekend schools or extracurricular programmes in Bengali (cf. Chen et al., 2018; Koda et al., 2008) and family workshops (Gasca Jiménez & Adrada-Rafael, 2021) and highlights its cultural, cognitive and social benefits (Cangelosi et al., 2024).

Community programmes should also normalise plurilingual competence and practices as a core learning goal (S. Canagarajah & Liyanage, 2012; Piccardo et al., 2019). Bengali initiatives should address linguistic power asymmetries and resist marginalisation to promote equity (cf. De Houwer, 2018). This aligns with decolonial approaches to FLP and critiques of linguistic coloniality (Léglise, 2024; Veronelli, 2015), positioning HL reclamation as a response to colonial legacies (Sarcinelli, 2018). Parents can also strengthen their children’s HL proficiency by using explicit socialisation practices and drawing on emotional aspects of family life that support language maintenance (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020; Tannenbaum, 2012).

Returning to the research questions, this study demonstrates that Bangladeshi immigrant parents and their children in NYC differ significantly in their language ideologies, practices and management. By integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence, the study highlights a persistent implementation gap within FLP. Thus, strong LI and LM efforts do not sustain HL practices across generations. This finding contributes to theories of heritage language maintenance and FLP by illustrating how structural and institutional forces mediate the relationship between ideology, practice and management in immigrant families.

This study confronted some methodological and analytical limitations due to practical reasons. First, it focused exclusively on Bangladeshi families in intra-national marriages, which may reduce its generalisability and limit transferability to across regions, economic dimensions, ethnic groups and family structures. Second, it relied on self-reported survey and interview data, which is susceptible to recall bias and perceived pressure to produce socially desirable responses. Third, the cross-sectional design only captured a single point in time, which precludes conclusions about changes over time and limits causal interpretation. Finally, this study overlooks the role of grandparents, which remains an important area for future research. Future study may address this gap by exploring how socio-economic factors influence the tripartite FLP framework in the long term.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the guidance and constructive feedback of Prof. Piotr Romanowski [University of Warsaw, Poland], who supervised his MA dissertation. This paper is based on selected aspects of the said thesis.

ORCID iD

Abdul Awal

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author acknowledges IDUB UW microgrants under Excellence Initiative-Research University for University of Warsaw for supporting open access publication the present work.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Abdul Awal, PhD is a senior assistant (Teaching and Research) at the Department of South Asian Studies, Faculty of Asian and African Cultures of the University of Warsaw, Poland. His academic interests include multilingualism, language policy and planning, South Asian languages, and linguistic human rights. His research focuses on the intersections of language, power, and culture. He has published extensively on language, literature, and sociolinguistics, and has presented his work at international conferences.

References

Adams

Keane

Dutton

(2005). The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others. Duke University Press.

Afreen

Norton

(2022). Bangla and the identity of the heritage language teacher. Educational Linguistics, 1(1), 152–178.

Ahearn

(2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137.

Ahmed

K. A.

(2006). Formation of identities of Bangladeshi immigrants in Ottawa [Master’s dissertation]. Carleton University.

Akhter

Yang

P. Q.

(2023). The Bangladeshi diaspora in the United States: History and portrait. Genealogy, 7(4), Article 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy7040081

Al-Azami

A. S.

(2005). Language Maintenance and Shift among the Bangladeshis in Manchester. ICDES, Edge Hill University.

Al-Azami

(2014). From Bengali to English: Sequential bilingualism of a second-generation British Bangladeshi. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(4), 484–497.

Andaleeb

Jamil

Rajeb

(2022). Demographic effects on TV news credibility: Perceptions in Bangladesh. Media Watch, 13(1), 49–68.

Anderson

Argyri

Ashtari

Cannizzaro

Egnatz

Emilsson Peskova

Hristozova

Little

Mehmedbegovic-Smith

Nahodilova

Paulovicova

Wahlin

(2024). Global call for action for heritage language education. Heritage Language Global Think Tank. https://menntavisindastofnun.hi.is/is/global-call-hle

10.

Bacallao

M. L.

Smokowski

P. R.

(2007). The costs of getting ahead: Mexican family system changes after immigration. Family Relations, 56(1), 52–66.

11.

Baker

(2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Multilingual Matters.

12.

Baker

Jones

S. P.

(1998). Encyclopedia of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual Matters.

13.

Barron-Hauwaert

(2004). Language strategies for bilingual families: The one-parent-one-language approach. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853597169

14.

Bayram

Pascual

Cabo

Rothman

(2019). Intra-generational attrition: Contributions to heritage speaker competence. In Polinsky

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of heritage languages (pp. 446–457). Oxford University Press.

15.

Bergman

M. M.

(Ed.). (2008). Advances in mixed methods research. Continuum.

16.

Bezcioglu-Göktolga

Yagmur

(2022). Intergenerational differences in family language policy of Turkish families in the Netherlands. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 43(9), 891–906.

17.

Bhaskar

(2008). A realist theory of science. Routledge.

18.

Bhattacharya

Sinha

(2025). ‘Bhadraloks’ on the move: The Bengali diaspora in Singapore. South Asian Diaspora, 17(1), 19–37.

19.

Bilgory-Fazakas

Armon-Lotem

(2025). Resilient heritage language maintenance: The interplay of family, culture, and pragmatic choices. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1550704.

20.

Bishop

E. C.

Shepherd

M. L.

(2011). Ethical reflections: Examining reflexivity through the narrative paradigm. Qualitative Health Research, 21(9), 1283–1294.

21.

Blake

R. J.

Zyzik

E. C.

(2003). Who’s helping whom? Learner/heritage-speakers’ networked discussions in Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 519–544.

22.

Blommaert

(2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge University Press.

23.

Boon

Polinsky

(2015). From silence to voice: Empowering heritage language speakers in the 21st century (Informes del Observatorio / Observatorio Reports No.007-01/2015EN). Instituto Cervantes at Harvard University. https://doi.org/10.15427/OR007-01/2015EN

24.

Bose

Gao

Starfield

Perera

(2024). Understanding networked family language policy: A study among Bengali immigrants in Australia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 25(4), 416–443.

25.

Bossavie

(2022, July 18). Temporary migration for long-term investment: Lessons from Bangladesh. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/jobs/temporary-migration-long-term-investment-lessons-bangladesh

26.

Braun

Clarke

Hayfield

Davey

Jenkinson

(2023). Doing reflexive thematic analysis. In Bager-Charleson

McBeath

(Eds.), Supporting research in counselling and psychotherapy: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research (pp. 19–38). Springer.

27.

Bridges

Hoff

(2014). Older sibling influences on the language environment and language development of toddlers in bilingual homes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(2), 225–241.

28.

Brown

C. L.

(2011). Maintaining heritage language: Perspectives of Korean parents. Multicultural Education, 18(3), 31–37.

29.

Bryman

(2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

30.

Budiman

(2021, April 29). Bangladeshis in the U.S. fact sheet. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/fact-sheet/asian-americans-bangladeshis-in-the-u-s/

31.

Caldas

S. J.

(2012). Language policy in the family. In Spolsky

(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy (pp. 351–373). Cambridge University Press.

32.

Canagarajah

A. S.

(2008). Language shift and the family: Questions from the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(2), 143–176.

33.

Canagarajah

Liyanage

(2012). Lessons from pre-colonial multilingualism. In Blackledge

Creese

Martin-Jones

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 67–83). Routledge.

34.

Cangelosi

Borghetti

Bonifacci

(2024). How parents’ perceived value of the heritage language predicts their children’s skills. Languages, 9(3), 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9030080

35.

Carey

Shukur

(1985). A profile of the Bangladeshi community in East London. New Community, 12(3), 405–417.

36.

Carreira

Kagan

(2011). The results of the national heritage language survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 44(1), 40–64.

37.

Cavallaro

(2010). From trilingualism to monolingualism? Sicilian-Italians in Australia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 206, 109–134.

38.

Chatterji

(2016). Scripting the folk: History, folklore, and the imagination of place in Bengal. Annual Review of Anthropology, 45(1), 377–394.

39.

Chen

S. H.

Zhou

Uchikoshi

(2018). Heritage language socialization in Chinese American immigrant families: Prospective links to children’s heritage language proficiency. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24, 1193–1209. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1547680

40.

Choudhury

(2012). 3. Raising bilingual and bicultural Bangladeshi-American children in New York City: Perspectives from educators and parents in a Bengali community program. In García

Zakharia

Otcu

(Ed.), Bilingual community education and multilingualism: Beyond heritage languages in a global city (pp. 60–73). Multilingual Matters.

41.

Chowdhury

F. Y.

(2019). Language and culture maintenance among Bangladeshi migrants in Southeast Queensland, Australia [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Queensland. https://doi.org/10.14264/uql.2019.690

42.

Clyne

M. G.

(1982). Multilingual Australia. River Seine Publications.

43.

Clyne

M. G.

(1991). Community languages: The Australian experience. Cambridge University Press.

44.

Corson

(1999). Community-based education for indigenous cultures. In May

(Ed.), Indigenous community-based education (pp. 8–19). Multilingual Matters.

45.

Creese

Blackledge

(2011). Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1196–1208.

46.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

47.

Cummins

(2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 585–592.

48.

Cummings

(2017). Cross-sectional design. In Allen

(Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 315–317). SAGE Publications.

49.

Curdt-Christiansen

X. L.

(2009). Visible and invisible language planning: Ideological factors in the family language policy of Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. Language Policy, 8(4), 351–375.

50.

Curdt-Christiansen

X. L.

(2012). Private language management in Singapore: Which language to practice and how? In Yeung

A. S.

Lee

C. F. K.

Brown

E. L.

(Eds.), Communication and language (pp. 55–77). Information Age Publishing.

51.

Curdt-Christiansen

X. L.

(2013). Family language policy: Sociopolitical reality versus linguistic continuity. Language Policy, 13(1), 1–7.

52.

Curdt-Christiansen

X. L.

(2016). Conflicting language ideologies and contradictory language practices in Singaporean multilingual families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(7), 694–709.

53.

Curdt-Christiansen

X. L.

(2018). Family language policy. In Tollefson

J. W.

Pérez-Milans

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 420–441). Oxford University Press.

54.

Curdt-Christiansen

X. L.

Huang

(2020). Factors influencing family language policy. In Schalley

S. A. S.

Eisenchlas

(Eds.), Handbook of social and affective factors in home language maintenance and development (pp. 174–193). De Gruyter Mouton.

55.

Curdt-Christiansen

X. L.

Sun

(2022). Establishing and maintaining a multilingual family language policy. In Stavans

Jessner

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of childhood multilingualism (pp. 257–277). Cambridge University Press.

56.

Dąbrowska

(2013). Heritage languages: A new laboratory for empirical linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4), 129–137.

57.

De Houwer

. (2007). Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(3), 411–424.

58.

De Houwer

. (2018). The role of language input environments for language outcomes and language acquisition in young bilingual children. In de Groot

A. M. B.

Hagoort

(Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language (pp. 127–154). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

59.

Deprez

(1994). Les enfants bilingues: langues et familles [Bilingual children: Languages and families]. Crédif-Didier.

60.

Dixon

L. Q.

(2014). Home language and literacy practices among immigrant second-language learners. Language Teaching, 47(4), 414–449.

61.

Doyle

(2018). Housing in UK new immigration destinations: Planning, houses of multiple occupation and the challenges of uncertainty. Journal of Rural Studies, 64, 276–288.

62.

Eftekhari

(2024). Transcribing in the digital age: Qualitative research practice utilizing intelligent speech recognition technology. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 23(5), 553–560.

63.

Escudero

Diskin-Holdaway

Pino Escobar

Hajek

(2023). Needs and demands for heritage language support in Australia: Results from a nationwide survey. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 46(2), 437–454.

64.

Ferro

(2025). The linguistic heritage of the Bangladeshi ‘new communities’ of Venice (Italy). Between Italian and Bangla and beyond. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie orientale, 61, 275–298.

65.

Fishman

J. A.

(1965). The status and prospects of bilingualism in the United States. The Modern Language Journal, 49(3), 143–155.

66.

Fishman

J. A.

(1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Multilingual Matters.

67.

Fishman

J. A.

(2001). 300-plus years of heritage language education in the United States. In Kreeft Peyton

Ranard

McGinnis

(Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 81–97). Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.

68.

Fogle

L. W.

King

K. A.

(2013). Child agency and language policy in transnational families. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–25.

69.

Gardner

(2009). Lives in motion: The life-course, movement and migration in Bangladesh. Journal of South Asian Development, 4(2), 229–251.

70.

Gasca Jiménez

Adrada-Rafael

. (2021). Understanding heritage language learners’ critical language awareness (CLA) in mixed language programs. Languages, 6(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6010037

71.

Ghosh

(2006). We are not all the same: The differential migration, settlement patterns, and housing trajectories of Indian Bengalis and Bangladeshis in Toronto [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. York University, Toronto, Canada.

72.

Ghosh

(2007). Transnational ties and intraimmigrant group settlement experiences: A case of Indian Bengalis and Bangladeshis in Toronto. GeoJournal, 68(3), 223–242.

73.

Ghosh

(2014). Everyday lives in vertical neighbourhoods: Exploring Bangladeshi residential spaces in Toronto’s inner suburbs. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(6), 2008–2024.

74.

Gyogi

(2015). Children’s agency in language choice: A case study of two Japanese-English bilingual children in London. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(6), 749–764.

75.

Hajjaj

(2022). Nationalism and national identity formation in Bangladesh: A colonial legacy behind the clash of language and religion. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 7(3), 435–448.

76.

Haynes-Brown

T. K.

(2024). The role of the implementation matrix in designing and reporting integration decisions in a mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 18(3), 393–403.

77.

Heller

(2003). Anti-Italianism in sixteenth-century France. University of Toronto Press.

78.

Hélot

(2007). Du bilinguisme en famille au plurilinguisme à l’école [From family bilingualism to school plurilingualism]. L’Harmattan.

79.

Hiratsuka

Pennycook

(2020). Translingual family repertoires: ‘no, Morci is itaiitai panzita, amor’. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(9), 749–763.

80.

Hollebeke

Dekeyser

G. N. M.

Caira

Agirdag

Struys

(2022). Cherishing the heritage language: Predictors of parental heritage language maintenance efforts. International Journal of Bilingualism, 27(6), 925–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069221132630

81.

Hollebeke

Struys

Agirdag

(2020). Can family language policy predict linguistic, socioemotional and cognitive child and family outcomes? A systematic review. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 44(10), 1044–1075.

82.

Hugly

Sayward

(1987). Relativism and ontology. The Philosophical Quarterly, 37(148), 278–290.

83.

Johnstone

(2010). Review of research on language teaching, learning and policy published in 2008. Language Teaching, 43(4), 430–460.

84.

Kern-Jedrychowska

(2017, April 28). New bilingual program to help Bangladeshi students thrive in Queens schools. DNAinfo New York. https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170428/jamaica/bilingual-program-bengali-hillcrest-high-school/

85.

Kheirkhah

(2016). From family language practices to family language policies: Children as socializing agents (Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No. 676). Department of Thematic Studies–Child Studies, Linköping University.

86.

Kim

I. J.

Kim

L. I.

Kelly

J. G.

(2006). Developing cultural competence in working with Korean immigrant families. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(2), 149–165.

87.

King

K. A.

(2000). Language ideologies and heritage language education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3(3), 167–184.

88.

King

K. A.

Fogle

L. W.

(2006). Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents’ perspectives on family language policy for additive bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(6), 695–712.

89.

King

K. A.

Fogle

L. W.

(2017). Family language policy. In McCarty

May

(Eds.), Language policy and political issues in education: Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 315–327). Springer.

90.

King

K. A.

Fogle

L. W.

Logan-Terry

(2008). Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 907–922.

91.

Kloss

(1966). Types of multilingual communities: A discussion of ten variables. Sociological Inquiry, 36(2), 147–156.

92.

Koda

Zhang

Yang

C. L.

(2008). Literacy development in Chinese as a heritage language. In He

A. W.

Xiao

(Eds.), Chinese as a heritage language: Fostering rooted world citizenry (pp. 137–149). National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i.

93.

Kolancali

Hodgkiss

Mathers

Hewitt

Nag

Murphy

(2024). In between multilingualism and monolingualism: Exploring language maintenance and shift among Bangladeshi households in England. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–22.

94.

Kozminska

Hua

(2020). The promise and resilience of multilingualism: Language ideologies and practices of Polish-speaking migrants in the UK post the Brexit vote. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42(5), 444–461.

95.

Lanza

(1997). Language contact in bilingual two-year-olds and code switching: Language encounters of a different kind. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1(2), 135–162.

96.

Lanza

(2004). Language mixing in infant bilingualism: A sociolinguistic perspective (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1997).

97.

Lanza

Lomeu Gomes

(2020). Family language policy: Foundations, theoretical perspectives and critical approaches. In Schalley

A. C.

Eisenchlas

S. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of home language maintenance and development: Social and affective factors (pp. 153–173). De Gruyter Mouton.

98.

Lee

(1996). Cognitive development in bilingual children: A case for bilingual instruction in early childhood education. Bilingual Research Journal, 20(3–4), 499–522.

99.

Léglise

(2024). Decolonizing family language policy, or reimagining family multilingualism as an inclusive field. Journal of Multilingual Theories and Practices, 4(2), 288–304.

100.

Leung

Uchikoshi

(2012). Relationships among language ideologies, family language policies, and children’s language achievement: A look at Cantonese-English bilinguals in the US. Bilingual Research Journal, 35(3), 294–313.

101.

Lipińska

Seretny

(2012). Międzyjęzykiem ojczystym a obcym: Nauczanie i uczenie się języka odziedziczonego na przykładzie szkolnictwa polonijnego w Chicago [Between the native and foreign interlanguage: Teaching and learning a heritage language based on Polish diaspora education in Chicago]. Księgarnia Akademicka.

102.

Little

(2023). “Half of who you are”: Parent and child reflections on the emotional experiences of reversing familial language shift. International Journal of Bilingualism, 27(2), 217–231.

103.

Lomeu Gomes

. (2018). Family language policy ten years on: A critical approach to family multilingualism. Multilingual Margins: A Journal of Multilingualism from the Periphery, 5(2), 51–72.

104.

Lukose

R. A.

(2007). The difference that diaspora makes: Thinking through the anthropology of immigrant education in the United States. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(4), 405–418.

105.

Luykx

(2003). Weaving languages together: Family language policy and gender socialization in bilingual Aymara households. In Bayley

Schecter

S. R.

(Eds.), Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 25–43). Multilingual Matters.

106.

Luykx

(2005). Children as socializing agents: Family language policy in situations of language shift. In Cohen

McAlister

K. T.

Rolstad

MacSwan

(Eds.), ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 1407–1414). Cascadilla Press.

107.

MacSwan

(2000). The threshold hypothesis, semilingualism, and other contributions to a deficit view of linguistic minorities. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(1), 3–45.

108.

Martena

(2023). Family language policy: The maintenance of Latvian as a heritage language in the diaspora. In Hilbig

Jakaitė-Bulbukienė

Žurauskaitė

Daraškienė

(Eds.), Tarp taikomosios kalbotyros barų: Mokslinių straipsnių rinkinys profesorės Meilutės Ramonienės jubiliejui [Across the fields of applied linguistics: A collection of research articles for Professor Meilutė Ramonienė’s jubilee] (pp. 83–100). Vilniaus universitetas.

109.

Maseko

(2022). Family language policy in post-genocide Matabeleland: The case of a Ndebele family. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 40(1), 1–14.

110.

McCarty

T. L.

(2002). A place to be Navajo: Rough Rock and the struggle for self-determination in indigenous schooling. Routledge.

111.

Michael-Luna

(2015). What parents have to teach us about their dual language children. YC Young Children, 70(5), 42–49.

112.

Mirvahedi

S. H.

(2021). Examining family language policy through realist social theory. Language in Society, 50(3), 389–410.

113.

Mirvahedi

S. H.

Hosseini

(2023). Family language policy in retrospect: Narratives of success and failure in an Indian–Iranian transnational family. Language Policy, 22(2), 179–200.

114.

Mishina-Mori

(2011). A longitudinal analysis of language choice in bilingual children: The role of parental input and interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3122–3138.

115.

Montrul

(2016). The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge University Press.

116.

Montrul

(2020). Attrition, addition, and age. Second Language Research, 36(2), 213–217.

117.

Moustaoui Srhir

. (2020). Making children multilingual: Family language policy and parental agency in Moroccan transnational families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(1), 108–120.

118.

Moustaoui Srhir

Poveda

. (2022). Family language policy and the family sociolinguistic order in a neoliberal context. Sociolinguistic Studies, 16(2–3), 179–201.

119.

Mueller

(2023). Family language policy of trilingual families in Japan: How parents try to raise multilingual children in a monolingual society [Master’s thesis]. University of Oxford.

120.

Murillo

L. A.

Smith

P. H.

(2011). ‘I will never forget that’: Lasting effects of language discrimination on language-minority children in Colombia and on the US-Mexico border. Childhood Education, 87(3), 147–153.

121.

Pagé

L. L.

Noels

K. A.

(2024). Family language policy retention across generations: Childhood language policies, multilingualism experiences, and future language policies in multilingual emerging Canadian adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1394027. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1394027

122.

Paradis

Soto-Corominas

Daskalaki

Chen

Gottardo

(2021). Morphosyntactic development in first-generation Arabic–English children: The effect of cognitive, age, and input factors over time and across languages. Languages, 6(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6010031

123.

Park

S. M.

Sarkar

(2007). Parents’ attitudes toward heritage language maintenance for their children and their efforts to help their children maintain the heritage language: A case study of Korean-Canadian immigrants. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 20(3), 223–235.

124.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage.

125.

Pauwels

(2016). Language maintenance and shift. Cambridge University Press.

126.

Piccardo

North

Goodier

(2019). Broadening the scope of language education: Mediation, plurilingualism, and collaborative learning: The CEFR companion volume. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15(1), 17–36.

127.

Polinsky

(2018). Heritage languages and their speakers. Cambridge University Press.

128.

Polinsky

Scontras

(2020). Understanding heritage languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 4–20.

129.

Porcel

J. A.

(2006). The paradox of Spanish among Miami Cubans. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(1), 93–110.

130.

Quay

Montanari

(2016). Early bilingualism: From differentiation to the impact of family language practices. In Nicoladis

Montanari

(Eds.), Lifespan perspectives on bilingualism (pp. 23–42). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110344414-003

131.

Rahim

(1990). After the last journey: Some reflections on Bangladeshi community life in Ontario. Polyphony, 12, 8–11.

132.

Rahim

(2001). A tarnished golden deer: The regime for Bangladesh migrant worker (Programme for Research on Poverty Alleviation Research Report Series No. 83). Grameen Trust.

133.

Rahmadani

(2026). Family language policy and translanguaging practices as support for language development in early childhood students with autism spectrum disorder in Indonesia. Discover Education, 5, 136.

134.

Rasinger

S. M.

(2013). Language shift and vitality perceptions amongst London’s second-generation Bangladeshis. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(1), 46–60.

135.

Ren

(2013). Prolepsis, syncretism, and synergy in early language and literacy practices: A case study of family language policy in Singapore. Language Policy, 12(1), 63–82.

136.

Richards

J. C.

Schmidt

R. W.

(2013). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (5th ed.). Routledge.

137.

Rojas

Iglesias

Bunta

Goldstein

Goldenberg

Reese

(2016). Interlocutor differential effects on the expressive language skills of Spanish-speaking English learners. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18(2), 166–177.

138.

Romanowski

(2021a). A deliberate language policy or a perceived lack of agency: Heritage language maintenance in the Polish community in Melbourne. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(5), 1214–1234.

139.

Romanowski

(2021b). Family language policy in the Polish diaspora: A focus on Australia. Routledge.

140.

Rothman

(2009). Understanding the nature and outcomes of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 155–163.

141.

Salas-Wright

C. P.

Kagotho

Vaughn

M. G.

(2014). Mood, anxiety, and personality disorders among first- and second-generation immigrants to the United States. Psychiatry Research, 220(3), 1028–1036.

142.

Sarcinelli

A. S.

(2018). Does love make a family? The politics and micro-politics of filiation among same-sex families. L’Année Sociologique, 68(2), 367–392.

143.

Schalley

A. C.

Eisenchlas

S. A.

(Eds.) (2020). Handbook of home language maintenance and development: Social and affective factors. Walter De Gruyter.

144.

Schecter

S. R.

(2014). Language, culture, and identity. In Sharifian

(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 196–208). Routledge.

145.

Schneider

(2016). First/second generation immigrants (NESET II ad hoc question No. 4/2016). Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS) University of Osnabrück.

146.

Schwartz

(2010). Family language policy: Core issues of an emerging field. Applied Linguistics Review, 1(1), 171–192.

147.

Schwartz

(2020). Language-conducive strategies in early language education. In Murphy

Evangelou

(Eds.), Handbook of early language education (pp. 1–29). Routledge.

148.

Schwartz

Moin

(2012). Parents’ assessment of their preschool children’s bilingual development in the context of family language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 35–55.

149.

Schwartz

Verschik

(2013). Achieving success in family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction. In Schwartz

Verschik

(Eds.), Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction (pp. 1–20). Springer.

150.

Scontras

Badecker

Shank

Lim

Fedorenko

(2015). Syntactic complexity effects in sentence production. Cognitive Science, 39(3), 559–583.

151.

Scontras

Fuchs

Polinsky

(2015). Heritage language and linguistic theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1545.

152.

Shafiq

S. B.

(2016). Settlement experiences of Bangladeshi migrants in Australia [Doctoral dissertation]. Swinburne University.

153.

Shin

(2023). Heritage language maintenance and education in Korean communities. Korean Linguistics, 19(2), 107–120.

154.

Slavkov

(2017). Family language policy and school language choice: Pathways to bilingualism and multilingualism in a Canadian context. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(4), 378–400.

155.

Smagulova

(2017). Ideologies of language revival: Kazakh as school talk. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(3), 740–756.

156.

Sol

Heng

(2022). Understanding epistemology and its key approaches in research. Cambodian Journal of Educational Research, 2(2), 80–99.

157.

Sorenson Duncan

Paradis

. (2020). Home language environment and children’s second language acquisition: The special status of input from older siblings. Journal of Child Language, 47(5), 982–1005.

158.

Spolsky

(2004). Language policy. Cambridge University Press.

159.

Spolsky

(2009). Language management. Cambridge University Press.

160.

Spolsky

(2012). Family language policy: The critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 3–11.

161.

Spradley

(1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

162.

Subhan

(2007). Heritage language maintenance among Bangladeshi immigrants in Toronto [EdD dissertation]. North Arizona University.

163.

Tang

Calafato

(2025). Family language policy: The impact of multilingual experiences at university and language practices at home. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 28(1), 92–107.

164.

Tannenbaum

(2012). Family language policy as a form of coping or defence mechanism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 57–66.

165.

Tannenbaum

Howie

(2002). The association between language maintenance and family relations: Chinese immigrant children in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23(5), 408–424.

166.

Tsinivits

Unsworth

(2021). The impact of older siblings on the language environment and language development of bilingual toddlers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(2), 325–344.

167.

Valdés

(2000). Teaching heritage languages: An introduction for Slavic-language-teaching professionals. In Kagan

Rifkin

(Eds.), Learning and teaching of Slavic languages and cultures: Toward the 21st century (pp. 375–403). Slavica.

168.

Valdés

(2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In Peyton

Ranard

McGinnis

(Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 37–80). Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.

169.

Valdés

Fishman

J. A.

Chávez

Pérez

(2008). Maintaining Spanish in the United States: Steps toward the effective practice of heritage language re-acquisition/development. Hispania, 91(1), 4–24.

170.

Vallance

A. L.

(2015). Family language policy: Maintaining an endangered language in the home. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36(7), 750–765.

171.

Van Deusen-Scholl

. (2003). Toward a definition of heritage language: Sociopolitical and pedagogical considerations. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 2(3), 211–230.

172.

Van Mensel

. (2018). ‘Quiere koffie?’ The multilingual familylect of transcultural families. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(3), 233–248.

173.

Veronelli

(2015). The coloniality of language: Race, expressivity, power, and the darker side of modernity. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s & Gender Studies, 13(1), 108–134.

174.

Verschik

(2014). Introduction: Contacts of Estonian in the light of contact linguistics research. Sociolinguistic Studies, 8(3), 345–355.

175.

Verschik

Argus

(2023). When family language policy and early bilingualism research intersect: A case study. Taikomoji Kalbotyra, 20, 9–27.

176.

Wąsikiewicz-Firlej

Daly

(2023). Family language policy in the context of return migration: A case study. Glottodidactica, 50(1), 213–241.

177.

Wiley

T. G.

(2001). On defining heritage languages and their speakers. In Peyton

J. K.

Ranard

D. A.

McGinnis

(Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 29–36). Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.

178.

Wiley

T. G.

(2005). Literacy and language diversity in the United States (2nd ed.). Center for Applied Linguistics.

179.

Wiley

T. G.

(2014). The problem of defining heritage and community languages and their speakers: On the utility and limitations of definitional constructs. In Wiley

T. G.

Peyton

Christian

Moore

S. C. K.

Liu

(Eds.), Handbook of heritage, community, and Native American languages in the United States (pp. 19–26). Routledge.

180.

Wiley

T. G.

García

(2016). Language policy and planning in language education: Legacies, consequences, and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 48–63.

181.

Woodward

(2018). Indigenous language revival: The Wôpanâak Language Reclamation Project as a case study in indigenous identity, representation, and place-based knowledge. James Madison Undergraduate Research Journal, 5(1), 71–80.

182.

Yagmur

Bohnacker

(2022). It is not the ideology but the resources: Family language policy in a comparative perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 43(9), 817–820.

183.

Yamamoto

(2001). Language use in interlingual families: A Japanese-English sociolinguistic study. Multilingual Matters.

184.

Yeung

Y. S.

Marsh

H. W.

Suliman

(2000). Can two tongues live in harmony? Analysis of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS88) longitudinal data on the maintenance of home language. American Educational Research Journal, 37(4), 1001–1026.

185.

Zhu

(2016). Transnational experience, aspiration and family language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(7), 655–666.

Family language policy among Bangladeshi immigrants in New York

Abstract

Background:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Introduction

Family language policy

HL ideologies, practices and management

Parents and children agency

Heritage language: theory and practice

Bengali as a heritage language

Research design

Methods

Participants

Data collection and analysis

Results

Scale characteristics of the questionnaires

Language ideology

Language practice

Language management

Motivations, strategies & challenges

Discussion

Intergenerational language ideology and institutional constraints

Language practice and management

Comparative contexts

Implications for HL support

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Author biography

References