Introduction

Family language policies draw upon family members’ ideologies about language as well as the imagined futures desired for the various family members (King & Fogle, 2006; Purkarthofer, 2019). For multilingual families, this includes making decisions (consciously or subconsciously) about which linguistic varieties to highlight and which to not. For transnational families, this process becomes even more complex as families must constantly negotiate the intricacies of both homeland and hostland language ideologies, which at times can exist in contradiction to each other. Furthermore, this tension can become heightened when major political events push families to question their carefully balanced family language policies and, in some cases, change them significantly to reflect a repositioning of homeland identity. This is the case with the current article, which looks at how family language policies changed and developed longitudinally for Ukrainian families living in the diaspora of New Zealand, an English dominant country. We ask—what can we learn about the dynamics of family language policy when examined longitudinally and in relevant sociopolitical contexts? Furthermore, what might an extension of family language policy theory that focuses on aspirations afford us?

Imagined future identities and aspirational family language policy

Within Family Language Policy (FLP) research, a major focus has been the role of family members’ language ideologies in the practices and beliefs that make up FLPs (cf. King & Fogle, 2006; Purkarthofer, 2019). Family members hold ideologies regarding which language variety/ies are more beneficial, which hold the most significance, and which are central to members’ individual and well as collective identities. Alongside socio-cultural, economic and other environmental factors, these language ideologies influence FLPs and associated language practices (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009).

Imagined future identities is a helpful concept when seeking to understand why family members might be investing in particular language variety/ies (Kanno & Norton, 2003; Norton, 2000, 2013). Imagined future identities are the identities that people consider to be desirable identities for themselves and others when they imagine the future. For example, parents will often hold imagined future identities for their children that include being happy and successful (cf. De Houwer, 2020 on parents’ beliefs related to their children’s well-being in multilingual settings). When it comes to finding a pathway to these imagined future identities, parents will consider what forms of capital (symbolic or otherwise) (Bourdieu, 1986, 1991) that they need to invest in (Norton & Toohey, 2011; Norton Peirce, 1995) for their children and that they want to convince their children to invest in for themselves. Of course, children also have their own ideas about their own current practices and future selves, which contribute in turn to the agentive roles children also have in home language practices (cf. Seals, 2017).

Family members may hold imagined future identities for themselves as well as for other family members (e.g. a parent for a child). When these imagined future identities are connected with more than one language variety, the pathway to said future identities is complex. For example, in a study by Nofal and Seals (2021) looking at the FLP of an English monolingual family living in New Zealand who had adopted their Hindi-speaking daughter from an orphanage in India. The parents in this family wanted their daughter to maintain bilingualism in Hindi and English as she grew, but the parents did not themselves speak Hindi, so these FLP practices at times had an unwanted othering effect on their daughter. For this family, there were certain aspirations for their child’s future imagined identity that had connections to her heritage language. However, the child’s own agency and imagined future identity led to a discrepancy between an aspirational FLP and a realized or practical FLP. For some families, the aspirational aspect of imagined future identities can be far more present than any established pathway to this identity.

A further consideration comes when families have emigrated from a home country and now live in a host country that has a different dominant societal language (see Gharibi and Seals (2019)). In such cases, part of the pathway to family members’ imagined future identities may include proficiency in the dominant language of the host society if that future identity includes remaining in the hostland. However, if the imagined future identity includes returning to the homeland, then emphasis may be put on maintaining proficiency in the heritage language of the home to enable this future identity to eventuate. These considerations are not necessarily (nor likely to be) mutually exclusive, given that managing heritage language development is a dynamic and multifaceted process (see Andritsou, 2022 for a detailed overview).

These considerations and emphasis upon aspirations, lead us to the concept of Aspirational FLP. We define Aspirational FLP as a complex and dynamic set of ideal family language practices and management strategies that are focused on achieving the family member(s) imagined future identity/ies for themselves and/or other family member(s). These ideal language practices and management strategies are informed by ideologies associated with language(s) and variety/ies, as well as relevant sociopolitical context(s). Furthermore, in Aspirational FLP, there is no established language pathway for these families to follow—they are forging their own new pathways to the imagined future identities that they aspire to hold for themselves and their children. This notably includes instances where the families are having to shift their own heritage language practices in addition to maintaining the shifted heritage language in a host country with a different dominant societal language. While not impossible to achieve, the practicalities of reaching such an Aspirational FLP are extremely difficult and complex, therein highlighting the truly aspirational aspect of it.

The present study operationalises the concept of Aspirational FLP as above to investigate how beliefs and aspirations contribute to FLPs of families living in the diaspora.

Research design

This research comes from a larger ethnographically informed project, which includes regular ongoing participation in the focus community as well as semi-structured sociolinguistic interviews with three dozen Ukrainians living in different countries around the world. The present article focuses on three participants living in New Zealand interviewed in 2014 and again seven years later in 2021—Anton, Hanna, and Natalia.

The analysis of the interview data draws upon extralinguistic contextual factors such as the participants’ family backgrounds, place of origin and sociolinguistic context therein, and specifics of the participants’ involvement in the Ukrainian diaspora community in New Zealand. Furthermore, the analysis was ethnographically informed by the authors’ knowledge of the wider context of the diaspora community under consideration.

Both authors are actively involved with the New Zealand Ukrainian community—supporting the community’s initiatives and contributing to Ukrainian aid more generally. The first author is Ukrainian-American by birth and has been involved with the New Zealand Ukrainian community since 2014. The second author is Russian by birth and has been involved with the New Zealand Ukrainian community since 2013, most recently through providing language and employment support for Ukrainians migrating to New Zealand (as the second author works for an organization supporting migrants and refugees). The first author began this ongoing project in 2010, added a focus of the New Zealand Ukrainian community in 2014, and has continued this work with the second author to the present. While the first author’s shared heritage and community involvement undoubtedly guides the tone of interactions in the interviews, it also provides an established trust base and safe space in which participants can express themselves and draw upon knowledge of shared experiences to give further depth to the interviews.

The interviews constituting the material for the current investigation were conducted by the first author one-on-one a public location (café or library) chosen by each respective participant. All three participants were born in Ukraine and moved to New Zealand as adults. All are fluent in Ukrainian, English, and Russian, and have studied other languages as well. The interviews were mostly in English, but Ukrainian and Russian were used at times as well, and participants were encouraged to do so whenever they wanted (though no Ukrainian or Russian excerpts were included in the present analysis). The interviews each lasted between 30 and 90 min, depending on the preference of each participant. Each interview covered a range of sociolinguistic topics such as schooling in Ukraine, language politics, heritage languages, narrated experiences involving language ideologies in the homeland and hostland, family language practices past and present, and what it means to belong.

All interviews were transcribed in TranscriberAG (Barras et al., 2000) and subjected to Interactional Sociolinguistic discourse analysis. Interactional Sociolinguistics was chosen due to the focus that IS places on interpreting discursive meaning within its wider context (as opposed to line-by-line analysis and adjacency pairs that are the focus of Conversation Analysis; Gumperz, 1999, 2015) as well as the importance of drawing upon the researchers’ full knowledge of context—geographically, politically, interpersonally, linguistically, and so forth (Gumperz, 1982; Schiffrin, 1994). Context in this study also includes a critical lens, drawing upon both immediate as well as historical contexts, both in the home country and in the host country. We therefore agree with the stance taken by Reisigl and Wodak (2016) that 'context' includes "(1) the immediate, language or text-internal co-text and co-discourse, (2) the intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between utterances, texts, genres and discourses, (3) the extralinguistic social variables and institutional frames of a specific ‘context of situation’, and (4) the broader sociopolitical and historical context, which discursive practices are embedded in and related to" (p. 29).

In line with the focus of constructing social meanings in discursive interactions (Gumperz, 2015), the authors investigated manifestations of home country political developments and language ideologies in participants’ discourse. Notably, where such manifestations were found in participants’ discussions of language choices and language practices in their families, interesting cross-overs between attitudes towards home country language policies and the participants’ FLPs were identified. In particular, the analysis focusses on the participants’ language practices and ideologies as they manifest in discourse, as well as how these are related to the imagined future identities of the participants themselves, and the aspirations they have for their children. The longitudinal aspect of the data further highlighted these aspects, as we were able to compare what participants said at one point in time with what they said on the same topic seven years later. When compared with political developments in the home country of Ukraine at the same time, these discussions took on even deeper meaning. The contextual timeline that spans the interviews is given below.

Contextual timeline

While the mass-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia made international headlines in 2022, attacks by Russia and Russian-allied militants had already been ongoing for years in the eastern and southern territories of Ukraine. Furthermore, historical tensions go back hundreds of years. For the purposes of the contextual background of the current project, we will provide here a very basic outline of events leading up to and during data collection (see Figure 1, below) (see Kappeler et al (2003), Subtelny (2000), and Wilson (2009) for more detailed history).

Figure 1
figure 1

Timeline of data collection and recent contextual events in Ukraine

Full size image

In the decades leading up to its independence, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. As such, Ukrainians were required to follow Soviet laws and policies, including the use of the Russian language. This resulted in Russification en masse and language shift from Ukrainian to Russian for many Ukrainians, especially those in central, eastern, and southern regions of Ukraine (see Kreindler (1990), Pavlenko (2008), Seals (2009), and Shevelov (1989) for more on the Russification of Ukraine).

When in 1991, Ukraine declared independence from the Soviet Union and established itself as an independent nation, a process of Ukrainisation, reclaiming an independent Ukrainian identity, was established. Ukrainisation was welcomed by many but rejected by many others who saw it as again enforcing language shift but now in the opposite direction (cf. Danylenko, 2015; Marten, 2010; Masenko, 2009; Masenko & Horobets, 2015; Masenko & Orel, 2014; Osnach, 2015; Pavlenko, 2010, 2011). Language thus continued to be a contentious issue and still a powerful tool for international, national, and regional politics.

The idea of a Ukrainian national identity and what that means to the people continued in public and political discourses during the Orange Revolution of 2004 (cf. Seals, 2019; Wilson, 2009), and a decade later in what was known as the Euromaidan and the Revolution of Dignity in late 2013–2014. At this time, Russia also illegally annexed Crimea and began sending military supplies to support the pro-Russian militants in Eastern Ukraine. The question of what it means to be Ukrainian rose up, and there was a significant rise in people's alignment with a national Ukrainian identity over a regional or local identity (Shulga, 2015; Tsentr Doslidzhennya Suspil’stva, 2014a, 2014b).

Language also became a major variable, with many people tying the importance of speaking the Ukrainian language to a Ukrainian national identity. This led to the rise of a movement in which many Ukrainians who previously spoke Russian as their primary language made a conscious effort to shift their primary language to Ukrainian. This has been described in Ukrainian public discourse as “switching to Ukrainian”, bringing back Ukrainian as the main language of day to day use. The movement also evolved in discourse from Ukrainians as “changing your mother tongue” (Seals, 2019) or a “linguistic conversion” Bilaniuk (2020) and was primarily related discursively to negotiating personal and national identity by Ukrainians (see Seals, 2019 for more on this movement). It is at this time that the first set of interviews with Anton, Natalia, and Hanna were conducted by the first author.

In the years that followed, Russia continued to send military support to pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine, as well as continuing to occupy Crimea and remove any trace of Ukrainian identity there (see Volvach (2021, 2022) for more on the erasure of Ukrainian culture and identity in Crimea). Then in 2021, tensions began to increase again as Russian president Putin increased his threats of invading Ukraine on a national scale, leading to international speculation as to whether he would or would not actually invade. As we now know, the Russian military did indeed attack Ukraine nationwide in February 2022—attacks that are still occurring nationwide daily at the time of writing this article. The second set of interviews with Anton, Natalia, and Hanna occurred at the end of 2021—when fighting had been ongoing in Eastern Ukraine for 7 years, tensions were again high between Russia and Ukraine, and the status of nationwide invasion of Ukraine by Russia was unknown.

While the two sets of interview discourse reflect the contextual timelines given above, we also emphasize that the present findings contribute to ongoing ethnographically informed research on identity in Ukrainian diaspora communities. The discussion section will include further relevant developments for the interviewees following the 2022 mass-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, which contributes to our understanding of their language practices and beliefs and informs future research projects.

Participant overview

While each participant is Ukrainian and living in New Zealand, they also have individual experiences that have brought them to the identities and language practices they hold. Anton is originally from the now-separatist region of Eastern Ukraine and grew up speaking Russian. He moved to New Zealand from Ukraine as an adult with his wife in the early 2000s for work and lifestyle. He now identifies as Ukrainian-Kiwi and has two children, both born prior to the first interview. Natalia is originally from Central Ukraine, near the capital, and grew up speaking mostly Russian but also some Ukrainian. She moved to New Zealand from Ukraine with her husband and two young children in the early 2010s for work and future prospects. She now identifies as a Ukrainian living in New Zealand and has three children. Hanna is originally from Central-Eastern Ukraine and grew up speaking Russian. She moved to New Zealand as a young adult with her Ukrainian-New Zealander husband in the early 2010s because her husband is originally from New Zealand. Her child was born shortly before the first interview. She now identifies as a Ukrainian-New Zealander and has one child.

Findings

Below are excerpts from the interviews with all three participants. First, the 2014 interviews are presented, followed by the 2021 interviews. As all excerptsFootnote 1 show—the imagined futures, ideologies, and language practices that make up each family's reported language policy are dynamic. Each reflects the current and historical home-country and host-country discourses and language politics of the time, interacting with family language policies in dialogic ways. This dynamism is discussed in depth in Discussion section.

2014 Interviews

The below interviews were all conducted in 2014, shortly after the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine and following the rise of discourse about "changing ones mother tongue" from Russian to Ukrainian in the homeland (cf. Seals, 2019). The interviewees all reflect on their FLPs within this context—both current language practices and those that they aspire to.

Excerpt 1 Thinking about switching kids to Ukrainian

Anton::

Well, like, Russian is naturally because I grew up with this- with it, so I use it naturally at home, and trying to speak more with my kids, so they have strong Russian language too. But now I'm thinking about maybe switching them to Ukrainian. It's a bit hard practically… But I'm thinking about maybe teaching my daughter Ukrainian… Uh, so I want her to understand like um f- to XXX herself more to Ukrainian culture.

In Excerpt 1, above, Anton explains that Russian is understandably his primary language because he grew up in Eastern Ukraine, which is Russian language dominant. He reflects on trying to use his family's heritage language (Russian) more with his children at home. He also shows awareness of the then-preferred use of Ukrainian by many Ukrainians by beginning his answer with hesitation markers “well, like”. However, in addition to his current FLP, he also mentions his Aspirational FLP "switching [the kids] to Ukrainian", which is a dialogic echo of the home country "changing your mother tongue" discourse, as is the equation of Ukrainian language to Ukrainian culture. However, his use of qualifiers such as “maybe” also show Anton’s awareness that this is an aspiration that would nonetheless be difficult to achieve.

Excerpt 2 Trying to speak to son in Ukrainian

Hanna::

We speak Russian because ah my parents speak Russian and where I grew up people speak Russian and um so it's like- it's easiest thing to do for in our family < … > when I was studying in university we were using Ukrainian as a official language ah I do communicate in Ukrainian with people who speaks Ukrainian to me but unfortunately I was- I grew up speaking Russian so Russian is my first language. Yes, well yes I didn't practice Ukrainian unfortunately- I didn't practice Ukrainian at all um I'm trying to speak with my son in Ukrainian yes which is strange him- strange thing for him little bit [laughs] a bit worried wh- what's happening yes and but I think Russian-Russian's a little bit higher than Ukrainian because it's the language I speak so Ukrainian is the second one and then English but to be honest now I'm in New Zealand Ukrainian is like number three because I’m using English more than I’m using Ukrainian.

In Excerpt 2, above, Hanna also reflects on her current FLP, which involves speaking Russian as a heritage language since she is also from a Russian language dominant area of Ukraine. She is also aware of the dispreference for Russian language amongst Ukrainians that had arisen then in the homeland, which is revealed in discourse by self-corrections, hesitation pauses and by the use of the negative term "unfortunately" in regards to speaking` Russian. She refers to the Ukrainisation practices in the home country explaining her motivation to use ‘Ukrainian as official language’ and also dialogically echoes the discourses that had arisen at that time that Ukrainians should speak Ukrainian, saying she is trying to speak with her son in Ukrainian. While this shows her Aspirational FLP, Hanna also points to the practical complications involved, including that her hostland has a different dominant language (English) and that her young son finds the new use of Ukrainian "strange". Like Anton, Hanna shows awareness of expectations from other Ukrainians to use Ukrainian in her family through the use of mitigators such as “little bit” and “to be honest”. Furthermore, this excerpt highlights the agentive role that children hold within family language policy enactment.

Excerpt 3 Speaking strongly in Ukrainian

Natalia::

I speak in Ukrainian with my mother with my- with my relatives ah but mostly with friends I speak in Russian unfortunately. But now people who studied Russian like and speak in Russian like native try to like rebirth own Ukrainian language it's very important since now people try to like come back the culture

Corinne::

Yeah. Is that something your family is doing also?

Natalia::

Ah yeah I speak with my children in Ukrainian but older one ah most speak in Russian and younger one couple Russian couple Ukrainian but I speak with him strongly in Ukrainian [laughs] <…> Ah younger one we try keep Ukrainian culture for him. So and we met with ah Ukrainian community.

Excerpt 3 establishes Natalia's linguistic abilities in both Ukrainian and Russian, as well as her dialogic echoes of the home country Discourses through the negative term “unfortunately” when talking about speaking Russian, similar to the awareness shown by Anton and Hanna in Excerpts 1 and 2. Additionally, like the other two interviewees, Natalia dialogically reflects the homeland ideologies that Ukrainians should speak Ukrainian and that the Ukrainian language is connected to Ukrainian culture. Importantly, Natalia explains that she is investing much in her Aspirational FLP, speaking with her (then youngest) son "strongly in Ukrainian" and using Ukrainian with her older son. Furthermore, this excerpt again highlights the agency of children in a family’s FLP—both the high level of independence she assigns to her older son by describing his practices without mitigators, and through the use of qualifiers regarding her attempts with her younger son (“try to”).

2021 Interviews

By the time of the 2021 interviews, seven years had passed, and they were faced with the realities and practical challenges presented byparticipants’ attempts to enact their Aspirational FLPs. While the revolution in 2014 had changed the ideologies of many people, there was also a sense in 2021 in the diaspora of getting on with life. However, the renewed threats from the Russian government at the time of the 2021 interviews meant that Ukrainians were again thinking about the issues that were so dominant in 2014. All of this contextual background underlays the excerpts presented below.

Excerpt 4 Ukrainian for fun

Corinne::

Last time, when we talked, like it was just after the war had started and all that and you were talking about, um, how it was important for you, er for your kids to know, Ukrainian? And more than Russian? Wha- what happened with that, did you stay with that? Did it change?

Anton::

Umm, No. They speak, Russian- I mean they speak English obviously they're very good in English, the second language will be Russian, and Ukrainian I do for fun. Like I sometimes just speak for fu- for fun with them, in Ukrainian language because my Ukrainian language is not that good, so I speak for fun, for fun? Listen music sing songs, but n-no no more than that unfortunately because, well, unfortunately, i:n Ukraine we have a cultural background, but there is no... it's not that big literature background I mean honestly I still have a Russian literature background. Even like I hate modern Russia what's going on there, but I still when I joke... all my humor... all my philosophy and everything it's still based on Russian language? Just because it's my normal language.

In Excerpt 4, Anton reflects back on what he said in Excerpt 1 in 2014. He explains that the practicalities of growing up with Russian as his dominant language meant that Russian remained as the primary heritage language of his home. By saying that this is "unfortunate", he still reflects the dialogic echoes of home country language ideologies, but he also defends this, explaining how deeply his primary language is tied to how he communicates and the knowledge he holds. He explains his connection to Russian still with qualifiers and mitigators such as “even like”, “well”, and “still”, as well as rising intonation, showing his awareness that this is not the outcome that would be hoped for amongst many Ukrainians. He also explains that "obviously" his children are good at English, which reflects the hostland expectation in New Zealand that immigrants will speak English. The hostland expectations are a major factor for Anton, as further shown below.

Excerpt 5 Kiwi born in Ukraine

Corinne::

Where do you feel you belong?

Anton::

Oh New Zealand. Hundred per cent.

Corinne::

And has that changed over time at all?

Anton::

Nah it's pretty much changed in the first two weeks when I come here. But... I just knew that's the place wh- what I belong, but for some- for some, you know gods whatev- I know you know, like unexpected reason I was born in Ukraine no I always knew I'm a Kiwi, I always knew that. And the longer I live the- here? The more I been... get proof? That I'm a Kiwi actually like er just Kiwi wh- which was born in Ukraine.

In Excerpt 5, Anton explains that he identifies very much with New Zealand, so much so that he feels that he has always been a Kiwi (New Zealander) who happened to be born in Ukraine. This is an emotionally charged subject, as evidenced by abundant self-corrections and repeating affirmations that Anton “always knew” he was a Kiwi (New Zealander). He also explains that he "hundred per cent" feels that he belongs in New Zealand, something that he relates to the first author (“I know you know”) as expats, therein highlighting his priority investment in the hostland (including expected language practices, as shown in Excerpt 4).

Hanna, like Anton, highlights the importance of a New Zealand identity for her family and what this means in terms of the realities of their FLP.

Excerpt 6 ‘Subtle’ FLP

Hanna::

Well my first language is Russian so, we do try to speak Russian and we do try to explain, um, things to ((my son)) in Russian? He refuses at the moment, he doesn't want to stand out so he's one of those kids? So we slowly kind of introduce him into it but we don't impose on him so very gentle around er how we, impose the culture?

Corinne::

Yeah. And I'm sure he'll be interested more the older he gets and realise this is special?

Hanna::

Yeah, yeah, so, we kind of- we- we're very subtle in this way? Um, we tell him where er where I'm from and try to like teach him what like looks like what language, he forgets all the time. [laughs] Try to teach him some Ukrainian words and he's like yeah-yeah-yeah and then just say it's gone. [laughs] Er or we did um when he was in the daycare they- er they were very multicultural? And they asked us to organise a day- Ukrainian day so um er I cooked some food well there was Russian slash Ukrainian day because the other kid was Russian? <…> Um, the- I kind of, do this on demand?

In Excerpt 6, Hanna references the strength of agency that her son (and all children) have in terms of the FLP (“he refuses”), which has its own influence on what the family does. In Hanna's case, her son does not want to use a language other than English because he does not want to be marked as "different" from his peers. Hanna allows him to make this choice and therein influence the FLP directly, which she indicated discursively will not necessarily be received as fully welcome news by other Ukrainians (via the use of multiple false starts, pauses, rising intonation, and mitigators during these sections). As she explains, her attempts to introduce the heritage languages are "subtle", and she does it "on demand". Thus, English has become dominant in the home, with some Russian and occasionally Ukrainian more casually used.

Excerpt 7 Belonging more in New Zealand

Hanna::

Where I belong... <…> I guess, it cha- it changes when you start having kids and you realise that, well, I had a place where I belonged when I was in Ukraine but I didn't feel that I belonged there because I always had kind of a weird thinking compared to others, maybe I thought so I don't know. And then, in here, you're not hundred per cent local and you will never be because you have an accent and it always differentiates you from other people, you always have a story to tell how you arrived, I guess after ten years you're kind of, oh don't want to tell it okay. <…> Yeah. Right, no I feel I belong in New Zealand, my- my mindset is of a, New Zealander mindset and, yeah. I just don't- I don't think I will be able to function in Ukraine the way I can function in here.

In Excerpt 7, Hanna provides further information about why her FLP has ended up being English dominant with a more passive use of Russian and Ukrainian. As she explains, while she does not feel that she is completely accepted in Ukraine or New Zealand, the latter is the place where she now feels she belongs. This is clearly a topic that Hanna has thought about before, shown via the continuous explanation using conjunctions. She then returns to the present moment with a marked “Yeah. Right,” signaling a shift to her place of current belonging. Similar to Anton, primary investment in the hostland and imagined future in the hostland would explain her family's dominant use of English in the home and an FLP that accepts that.

Natalia had a very different result from her Aspirational FLP for her family, as discussed in the second interview in 2021.

Excerpt 8 Interactional Ukrainian usage at home

Corinne::

Yeah. And how often, um, do ((your sons)) also use Ukrainian around the house? [Or with you?1]

Natalia::

[Um...1] A-- is funny. He's, completely Ukrainian in the house once he moved in the- in- uh once he, like step in the house, then no English.

Corinne::

Oh interesting.

Natalia::

Just for, his girlfriend? He- it's a bit- I'm a bit... upset about that but he doesn't speak much with ((my partner)) unless if he asked him directly? Something like that? But he's just in Ukrainian. Uh, he speak Ukrainian and he's quite good in it. Um:, P-- keep better... uh... I speak ob-, I speak Ukrainian with him and with L-- I speak with my boys in Ukrainian, um b- my boys and um, u- I- also P--'s got, now Ukrainian lessons.

 < … > 

Corinne::

And um, does L-- use any Ukrainian? Does he talk yet?

Natalia::

Uh he talks a lot in English of course uh, because he's in kindy now for- from nine till five, yeah. And, um, but he understoo- understand me.

As Natalia explains in Excerpt 8, her eldest son who used to speak primarily Russian in 2014 now speaks “completely Ukrainian” in the home in 2021, and how this causes some friction with her English only speaking partner. Natalia’s evaluative use of “funny” for her son’s language practices can therefore be seen as her acknowledgment of the complexity of language ideologies and practices in the home. Her two younger sons have more passive Ukrainian knowledge alongside their active English knowledge, but Russian no longer has an active presence in her home. Furthermore, Natalia’s active description of her own practices with her sons (“I speak”, “we found”) shows that it is still important for her that they have Ukrainian language skills. As someone who took a stance to use Ukrainian "strongly" in 2014, Natalia's Aspirational FLP has been realized.

Excerpt 9 Shifting investments and imagined identities

Natalia::

Hmm, I'm still Ukrainian. Yeah... I've, yeah I belong to Ukraine of course I... I changed for good here, in New Zealand and I... feel that, and I f- f- feel it quite, often. I- I thought when, before, ((my husband)) passed away I thought uh... when I- I'll be, older... like in my, uh, retirement, I'll buy a house somewhere in Carpathian mountains, and will teach, kids, English, and do something craft things of- that was like a... [laughs]

Corinne::

Like a dream.

Natalia::

Like a dream, yeah.

Corinne::

If your kids all stayed here would you stay here or would you still consider going?

Natalia::

Probably I will connected to- to kids.

Corinne::

Yep.

Natalia::

Yeah. ‘Cause, we are Ukrainian, we are- our home where's our family.

Corinne::

Yeah. Yeah.

Natalia::

It's like yeah. So I will build my small Ukraine [laughing] here.

Finally, in Excerpt 9, Natalia comments upon her own sense of belonging. In this excerpt, she explains that while her identity has shifted while living in New Zealand, she still “belongs to Ukraine”—a strong choice of words showing limited agency. She also explains that she will likely not leave New Zealand while her children remain, but she concludes "So I will build my small Ukraine here", a statement of greater agency and finality related to her imagined future. This excerpt also shows the central importance that investment in a Ukrainian identity continues to have for her, as well as the importance of her children’s own future identity investments. This is turn helps bring further light to the success that she had in reaching her Apsirational FLP, as her family’s dynamic practices, including speaking Ukrainian, has continued to align with her identity and where she feels she belongs—both to Ukraine and to her family.

Discussion

Data presented in the current study is more than another illustration of the concept of FLP as a phenomenon that is “implicit, covert, unarticulated, fluid, and negotiated moment by moment” (King & Fogle, 2017, p. 322). The interviewees’ FLPs and linguistic aspirations appear to be linked to a unique combination of factors related to living in the diaspora community during ongoing changes in the home country language ideologies. As can be observed from Sects. Interviews 2014 and Interviews 2021, the language behavior and FLP of all three focal participants have undergone notable shifts over the years. The current study tracks these shifts longitudinally across seven years in relation to changes in language ideologies in the home country, involvement in the host country and complex and multifaceted involvement in the host community and diaspora community, which in its turn undergoes dynamic changes reflecting those in the home country. The presented findings outline the particular nature of these shifts for each participant, which depended on a complex set of dynamic factors, primarily identity and investment.

Anton’s discourse shifted from acknowledging in 2014 that speaking to his children in Ukrainian was “a bit hard practically” (Excerpt 1) to acknowledging that his children “speak English obviously” (Excerpt 4). Moreover, while discussing his children’s language behavior in 2021, Anton discursively shifted the imagined agency from active (“they’re very good in English”) to assigning the agency to language itself, rather than his kids as speakers (“the second language will be Russian”), then to replacing his children’s agency with his own agency while acknowledging that Ukrainian is something that Anton himself would “do for fun” (Excerpt 4). Compared to 2014, 2021 showed a greater discrepancy between the aspirational FLP and practical FLP for Anton, as he no longer mentions Ukrainian or Russian as essential components of his FLP, though both languages are still strongly connected to his own identity. Despite acknowledging his “hate” for “modern Russia what’s going on there”, Anton accepts that Russian is his dominant language and the language that he claims of his cultural background, deeply embedded in his identity.

The discourse of the second participant, Hanna, reflects a shift from “trying to speak with [her] son in Ukrainian” (Excerpt 2) in 2014 to “trying to speak Russian” (Excerpt 6) in 2021. Thus, her FLP has undergone a transformation from an aspirational attempt to embrace all languages Hanna identified with to a more pragmatically conditioned FLP aiming to enhance the use of Russian, which Hanna identified with as her dominant language. At the same time, even including Russian as a means of family communication is acknowledged as an attempt, rather than a definitive behavior. This can be explained by Hanna’s sense of belonging in New Zealand and having a “New Zealander mindset” (Excerpt 7). Being invested in New Zealand is an important factor that may underlie the “subtle” FLP in Hanna’s case, the fact that she prefers not to “impose the culture” (Ukrainian) on her son (Excerpt 6). Notably, while discursively substantiating introducing her heritage culture to her son, Hanna mentions Ukrainian culture and Ukrainian language, rather than Russian. It is evident from Hanna’s discourse that practical considerations like speaking Russian as a dominant language are intertwined with cultural identity considerations and expectations from other Ukrainians and New Zealanders, hence sha** a complex FLP.

Comparatively, the FLP that is reflected in Natalia’s discourse is consistently aimed at enhancing the use of Ukrainian as an interactional language within her family. Her conscious effort to speak with her children “strongly in Ukrainian” (Excerpt 3) could be a possible explanation of the shift in the children’s language behavior that she reports. At the same time English is mentioned as the language that Natalia’s children use a lot, primarily related to it being the main language of the community, e.g. the one her youngest son uses in daycare (Excerpt 8).

The observed complexity of the participants’ FLPs, as well as diachronic transformations in language behavior of the participants and their families, can be related to several external complicating factors, such as living in the diaspora, which has a strong influence on individuals’ identities and social practices (Hua & Wei, 2016). Further complicating factors are negotiating the ongoing changes in language ideologies and attitudes in Ukraine, both at the socio-political and personal levels, as presented in the background section above (i.e. macro-factors in Curdt-Christiansen’s (2009) terminology). Finally, the individuals’ FLPs are related to developments of language practices and ideologies at the family level. The observed findings demonstrate how macro-factors impact language attitudes and planned practices in the diaspora and contribute to language ideologies at the family level.

In order to understand the dynamics and development of Aspirational FLP, we need to be clear that immigrants’ conceptualizations of their future identities and relevant aspirations are inseparable from understanding what it means for them to ‘be Ukrainian’ or to ‘be a New Zealander’. In this respect, for example, Anton identified himself in 2021 as “Kiwi […] born in Ukraine” (Excerpt 5), while at the same time acknowledging the importance of his family’s connection to Ukraine at the time of war (Excerpt 4). Anton’s aspiration to invest more in the Ukrainian community (Excerpt 1) after the war began is also built into the perception of being a ‘good citizen’ in New Zealand (cf. Seals, 2019), since in the context of war, supporting Ukraine and Ukrainians has become widely accepted in New Zealand and around the world. This shows the interconnectedness and dynamism of identities, investments, ideologies, and language practices for those living in the diaspora.

The influence of macro-factors such as sociopolitical developments in the home country can be in conflict with what is perceived as practicable or convenient at the family level. This is evident from Anton’s aspirations for “maybe switching them [children] to Ukrainian” (2014 interview), while he himself is fully invested in being a Kiwi. Similarly, Hanna’s aspirations to use Ukrainian are perceived as a “stange thing” by her son, since habitually speaking Russian was the “easiest thing to do” in her family (Excerpt 2). Hanna’s aspirations also develop in response to the multicultural New Zealand community (Excerpt 6).

This data highlights the complexity of attempting to manage FLPs for multiple family members with different investments and imagined futures. While parents may develop Aspirational FLPs for themselves and their children, all members of the family have agency and influence the actual practical reality of FLPs. This may mean that over time Aspirational FLPs may be fully realized, partially realized, or give way to entirely different FLPs, as each situation allows. Furthermore, language practices may take different shapes for different family members, speaking to the very real challenge that parents have of realizing and adjusting FLPs over time.

Conclusions and implications for further research

A key matter of interest in the focus interviews, especially in 2021, was the sense of belonging. It is important to consider how the aspirations relating to belonging, investment, and associate family language policies changed from 2014 to 2021. The diachronic analysis revealed what factors contribute to whether the aspirational FLPs are realized in practice, or whether the participants have had to adjust what Purkarthofer (2019) describes as ‘planning policy’. This shows the high value of diachronic FLP research and the importance of considering different factors at the family, and wider community and societal level, as well as the changes and interactions of these factors. In a wider context, findings regarding dynamic FLPs that were investigated in the present analysis can be considered key components of further studies of the development of language aspirations in diaspora communities.

Our findings also point to the importance of considering the aspect of belonging for FLPs. All three participants express the aspirations for their children to keep Ukrainian identity and connection to the Ukrainian language. However, the ways in which these aspirations are expressed in discourse are notably different. Anton discursively stresses his own agency in using Ukrainian “for fun” (Excerpt 4), thus emphasizing internal aspirations. On the other hand, Hannah acknowledges the ‘demand’ of the community her son interacts with in New Zealand to promote his Ukrainian cultural identity (Excerpt 6), which relates to external motivating factors. ‘Belonging in New Zealand’ is pictured differently by Hanna who declares she has a “New Zealander mindset” (Excerpt 7), and Natalia who expresses an aspiration to “build [her] small Ukraine” in New Zealand. The data revealed the influence of community expectations on the FLPs, in particular the external support of Ukrainian identity which can be related to a wider context of heritage language support in New Zealand. A possible avenue for further studies would be to investigate the development of FLPs in more linguistically or culturally homogeneous communities.

The subject of war was not postulated as the main focus of the interviews, but, rather, emerged in discourse since the topics of homeland, family language practices and the sense of belonging are closely intertwined with reflections of sociopolitical events in the homeland, as perceived by the participants. Furthermore, the full-scale Russian invasion in February 2022 enhanced participants’ positionings that in some instances even overthrew previous identity shifts. For example, despite acceptance in 2021 of Russian as her dominant language, Hanna switched to Ukrainian as her main communication language in 2022 following the mass-scale invasion and a resulting personal loss, thus contributing to the ‘Changing your Mother Tongue’ movement on a new level. Furthermore, in 2022 Hanna and Natalia took leadership roles in a large New Zealand based organization which supports Ukrainian language and culture, as well as Ukrainian refugees. Thus, the drive to invest more into the Ukrainian community that was first viewed in 2014–2021 increased to a new level in 2022, further signaling the importance of longitudinal FLP research.

In conclusion, using discourse analysis in combination with an ethnographically-informed approach, this study reveals important factors that impact FLPs, and particularly the potential realization of Aspirational FLPs, longitudinally for Ukrainian migrants in New Zealand. These factors include the dynamic sociopolitical context in the home country on the one hand, and diasporic realities on the other hand. Importantly, the home country dynamics, such as changes in language ideologies, become more directly relevant for parents highly invested in the home country, while host country societal expectations become a primary consideration for children. As a result, complex multi-faceted FLPs are constructed, and develop dynamically, reflecting the events in both home and host countries, as well as the parents’ and children’s dynamic identity negotiations. The presented findings highlight the dynamism of FLPs in the global context, and the importance of supporting families in the development of such complex FLPs, both as currently enacted as well as aspirational.