Situated at the intersection of Family Language Policy (FLP) and Linguistic Landscape (LL) studies, this research work uses an innovative methodological approach of 'homescape walking tour' to engage young children in the data generation process, thus acknowledging child agency (Fogle & King 2013) and empowering the children in the research process. The walking tours triggered conversations with children about their lived language experiences (Busch 2015) and their multiple perceptions and uses of literacy resources.
In understanding the construction of family spaces and identifying how the perspectives of different target groups, in this case, the parents and the children, relate to each other, Lefebvre's triadic understanding of space is applied as a framework. According to Lefebvre (2006), social space is not naturally given but socially produced, jointly and simultaneously by the perceived space, the conceived space, and the lived space. In addition to children's lived experience with the multilingual family spaces, interviews with parents about their opinions about FLP, as well as the photographs taken during walking tours, provide us with a conceptive perspective on the home linguistic environment.
The present research identifies a close relationship between the homescapes and the FLP in the studied families and shows that the LL of private family spaces also has an informative and symbolic function as described by Landry and Bourhis (1997). The homescapes were constructed by family members both as a language learning context and as a representation of family identity. In line with Garvin (2010), I argue that homescape can both function as a stimulus text during interviews with family members and as a text of actual situated language (see also Garvin 2010).
This study also provides knowledge about how children interpret the wide range of literacy practices available to them and how they experience these practices as positive resources for their literacy development. When comparing children's and parents' perspectives, we recognize that while some of the children's perceptions mirrored the parents' conceptions, in other cases their ways of framing differed from one another. Some homescape elements were regarded as highly relevant for language learning by parents, however, children concentrated on the playful character of the objects and related multimodal activities.
Bibliography
Fogle, L. W., & King, K. A. (2013). Child Agency and Language Policy in Transnational Families. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 19(0).
Busch, B. (2015). Expanding the Notion of the Linguistic Repertoire: On the Concept of Spracherleben -The Lived Experience of Language. Applied Linguistics, amv030.
Garvin, R. T. (2010). 14. Responses to the Linguistic Landscape in Memphis, Tennessee: An Urban Space in Transition. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben-Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape in the City (pp. 252–272). Multilingual Matters.
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49.
Lefebvre, H. (2006). Die Produktion des Raumes. In J. Dünne & S. Günzel (Eds.), Raumtheorie. Grundlagentexte aus Philosophie und Kulturwissenschaften. (pp. 330–343). Suhrkamp.
