Family language policy among Arabic speaking international families in Kazakhstan and the United States

• In Event: From Classrooms to Communities: Education, Language, and Belonging in Peacebuilding Efforts

Proposal

In multilingual migration contexts, the intergenerational transmission of minority languages remains a pressing challenge. Family language policy (FLP), which refers to the explicit and implicit decisions families make about language use at home, has become a central lens through which researchers study how families negotiate linguistic diversity (Curdt-Christiansen, 2024; Spolsky, 2012). Arabic, despite its global importance as a language of religion, culture, and heritage, is particularly vulnerable in non-Arabic speaking societies where its transmission depends almost entirely on family and community efforts.
Existing research has largely focused on Arabic-speaking families in Western contexts, especially North America and Europe (e.g., Abourehab & Azaz, 2023; Yazan & Ali, 2018). However, little is known about how Arabic is maintained in other global migration settings, particularly in post-Soviet, multilingual societies. This study addresses this gap by comparing Arabic-speaking international families in Kazakhstan, where Arabic has no institutional presence, and the United States, where Arabic-speaking immigrant communities and heritage schools provide varying degrees of support.
Kazakhstan offers a unique environment due to its state-driven “Trinity of Languages” policy, which promotes Kazakh as the national language, Russian as a language of interethnic communication, and English as a global language (Mehisto et al., 2014). While this trilingual model promotes multilingualism, it sidelines minority languages such as Arabic. For expatriate Arabic-speaking families, many of whom are temporary residents, this results in strong pressures to use Kazakh, Russian, and English in education and public life, confining Arabic largely to religious and domestic domains.
The United States, in contrast, presents an English-dominant environment where immigrant families encounter strong societal pressures toward assimilation. At the same time, the U.S. hosts established Arabic-speaking communities, mosques, and heritage schools, which offer more structured opportunities for Arabic learning than those available in Kazakhstan. Comparing these two contexts highlights how macro-level language policies and ideologies intersect with micro-level family language practices.
This study is guided by Spolsky’s (2012) tripartite model of language policy (language ideologies, practices, and management) combined with Fishman’s (1991) theory of Reversing Language Shift. Together, these frameworks provide analytical tools for examining parental ideologies about the value of Arabic, language practices in everyday family life, and language management strategies. This approach situates family-level policies within broader societal and institutional structures, allowing for a nuanced comparison between Kazakhstan and the U.S.
This comparative qualitative study includes ten Arabic-speaking families, five based in Astana, Kazakhstan, and five in U.S. cities with active Arabic-speaking communities. Data collection methods include: Semi-structured interviews, home observations, and parental language diaries. Thematic analysis was employed, using both inductive and deductive coding guided by the three FLP components. Comparative analysis highlights how similar family goals play out differently depending on the sociolinguistic environment.
Across both Kazakhstan and the U.S., parents consistently emphasized Arabic’s central role in religious practice and cultural identity. Arabic was valued as a heritage language that connects children to family traditions and the wider Arabic-speaking and Muslim community. In Kazakhstan, however, parents described the environment as linguistically competitive, with Arabic overshadowed by Kazakh, Russian, and English. Families reported that children frequently shifted to Russian or English, particularly in peer and school interactions. With no Arabic-medium schools or large Arabic-speaking communities, parents relied heavily on domestic strategies such as storytelling, Qur’an recitation, and selective digital media use. These efforts, while valuable, were perceived as insufficient against strong societal pressures.
In the U.S., Arabic was similarly challenged by the dominance of English. Yet, families often benefited from greater access to community resources, including Arabic heritage schools, weekend programs, and religious institutions that offered structured instruction. Parents noted that these external supports reinforced their home efforts, although children still gravitated toward English in most social and academic settings. The relative availability of community resources distinguished the U.S. case from Kazakhstan, where families often faced the challenge of sustaining Arabic in isolation.
In both contexts translanguaging was a common feature of family interactions. Parents expressed both pragmatic acceptance and concern about its long-term implications for Arabic proficiency. Management strategies included setting explicit rules for Arabic use at home, limiting exposure to dominant societal languages, and incorporating Arabic literacy activities. Despite differences in context, these strategies reflected a shared commitment to transmitting Arabic, though with varying degrees of success.
This comparative study contributes to research on FLP by broadening the scope of inquiry beyond Western contexts to include post-Soviet multilingual societies. It underscores how macro-level language policies and societal ideologies shape the possibilities for minority language transmission, even when family-level commitments remain strong. The findings also highlight the resilience and adaptability of Arabic-speaking families in negotiating their linguistic environments. In Kazakhstan, where Arabic has no institutional foothold, families shoulder the full responsibility for language maintenance. In the U.S., while families face assimilation pressures, community institutions provide important scaffolding.
Practically, the study lays the groundwork for community-based initiatives that can support Arabic-speaking families. Planned workshops in Astana, and potentially in U.S. cities, aim to engage families in co-developing strategies for language transmission and identity support. These initiatives underscore the applied value of the study in addressing real-world challenges faced by minority language families. Ultimately, this research illustrates that family language policy cannot be understood in isolation from the broader sociopolitical environment. By comparing two distinct migration contexts, it offers insights into the sustainability of minority languages in an era of global mobility and educational competition.

Authors

• Amr Rabie-Ahmed, Nazarbayev University

• Ayman Mohamed, Michigan State University