



























Revised version, Sajedeh.docx


Emerging Perspectives 
ep.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca 
 

 

 

 

Systemic Ecologies of Heritage Language Maintenance in Immigrant Families 

Sajedeh Sadat Hosseini* 

University of Calgary 

This paper explores how immigrant families use digital technologies to support 
heritage language (HL) maintenance within an ecological systems perspective. 
Guided by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory and the Family Language 
Policy (FLP)  model, it examines how families engage with and navigate affordances 
for HL practices across different layers of their lives, from home routines and 
community interactions to digital networks and broader sociopolitical structures. 
Immigrant families show remarkable resilience and creativity in adapting and 
mobilizing these tools, but sustainable HL maintenance requires more than 
individual family effort; it requires systemic change through inclusive policies, 
equitable access, and culturally responsive digital resources. 

Key words: Heritage language maintenance, ecological systems theory, digital technology, 
family language policy 

Hosseini, S. S. (2025). Systemic Ecologies of Heritage Language Maintenance in 
Immigrant Families. Emerging Perspectives. 

 

*sajedehsadat.hossein@ucalgary.ca 



Hosseini/ Emerging Perspectives (2025)  2 
 

Introduction 

Language acquisition and maintenance are not isolated or purely cognitive processes; 
rather, they unfold within dynamic, interdependent ecological systems encompassing physical, 
social, cultural, political, and increasingly, technological dimensions (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; van 
Lier, 2004). For immigrant families raising children in host societies where heritage languages 
(HLs) often occupy a marginalized position, these interrelated systems shape the everyday 
realities of language development, maintenance, and intergenerational transmission 
(Curdt-Christiansen, 2016). 

In the frequent absence of strong and formal institutional support for HLs, immigrant 
families show remarkable resilience as they create their own pathways to sustain their children’s 
linguistic and cultural continuity (King et al., 2008; Curdt-Christiansen & La Morgia, 2018). One 
of the most transformative developments in recent years is the growing use of digital 
technologies. These spaces are not just tools for communication; they are translocal social and 
cultural spaces where family ties, cultural values, language practices, and even beliefs about 
language are shaped, challenged, and reimagined (Kelly-Holmes, 2024; Hatoss et al., 2024). 

Within the ecological perspective, the concept of affordances helps explain how families 
engage with these technologies. Affordances refer to the opportunities for learning and 
interaction that emerge through the relationship between individuals and their environments (van 
Lier, 2004). They are not fixed features of digital tools or inherent capabilities of users; rather, 
they arise from how families interpret and use what digital tools offer (van Lier, 2004). In the 
context of HL maintenance, digital affordances become visible when immigrant families 
creatively and meaningfully draw on technology to support their children’s HL use and cultural 
identity (Liu, 2021).  

To better understand how digital tools mediate HL development within immigrant 
families, this review draws on two complementary perspectives: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological 
Systems Theory (1979), which conceptualizes human development as unfolding across nested, 
interacting systems, from immediate home environments to broader societal structures, and the 
family language policy (FLP) framework (Spolsky, 2004; Curdt-Christiansen, 2016), which 
highlights how language ideologies, management strategies, and daily practices operate within 
families under both internal and external dynamics. Together, these perspectives provide a way 
to explore how immigrant families, through agency, resilience, and a sense of ownership (Mora, 
2014), engage with the digital world to support their HL continuity. More specifically, this 
review draws on current research to examine how digital technologies function across four 
ecological levels—microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem—highlighting the 
layered challenges and opportunities immigrant families face in nurturing their children’s HL 
development (Piller, 2016; Curdt-Christiansen, 2016). 

1. Microsystem 

In Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, the microsystem represents the 
closest layer to an individual, encompassing the immediate environments where daily 
interactions occur, most notably the home, and increasingly, the digital space embedded within it. 
In immigrant families, these settings are where HL practices are lived and experienced more 
often through everyday routines rather than formal instruction (Spolsky, 2004; 
Curdt-Christiansen, 2016). These daily moments are where families put their language beliefs 
and goals into practice in subtle, meaningful ways. 

 
 



Hosseini/ Emerging Perspectives (2025)  3 
 

Within this context, digital affordances emerge from families’ active engagement with 
technology (van Lier, 2004; Little, 2019). Communication tools such as WhatsApp, FaceTime, 
and Telegram enable both synchronous and asynchronous interactions with extended family 
members abroad, embedding HL use into daily routines such as greetings, storytelling, and 
advice-seeking. Asynchronous features, such as voice notes, allow for repeated exposure to HL 
input, offering additional opportunities for exposure and meaningful use beyond immediate 
conversational contexts (Curdt-Christiansen, 2013). These exchanges are often pragmatic and 
emotionally charged, contributing to both the child’s linguistic development and emotional 
well-being. 

Entertainment also plays an important role. HL cartoons, family shows, and music videos 
accessed through streaming platforms normalize HL use while making it enjoyable. These 
moments are not only fun but can also be linguistically rich, offering vocabulary, rhythm, and 
expressions in context (Little, 2019; Makarova & Xiang, 2024). Reading apps and audio stories 
can become part of routines like bedtime, offering repeated exposure to HL (Pagé & Noels, 
2024). Even video games, if available in HLs, can open space for cousins and friends abroad to 
play and speak the language naturally (Gee, 2004). 

Altogether, these daily digital engagements make the HL more visible and usable in ways 
that are sustainable and grounded in real life. They reflect the practice dimension of FLP 
(Spolsky, 2004; Curdt-Christiansen, 2016), where language development is embedded in the 
flow of everyday life. Such family-initiated moments transform digital technologies into 
relational and affective learning spaces (Hatoss et al., 2024) which strengthen the child’s 
connection to their HL and identity. Still, these practices do not happen in a vacuum. Families’ 
ability to draw on digital tools for HL support depends on broader factors, such as access to HL 
resources, community networks, and how society views minority languages (Curdt-Christiansen, 
2018). The microsystem is where HL maintenance begins, but it is shaped by, and connected to, 
wider layers of the ecological system. 

2. Mesosystem 

The mesosystem refers to the interconnections between individuals’ immediate 
environments, such as home, community, school, and digital spaces. For immigrant families, this 
layer plays a key role in shaping how HL exposure is managed and how HL practices extend 
beyond the household (Curdt-Christiansen, 2016). It is within these intersecting spaces that 
parents often take on the role of gatekeepers, making intentional choices to guide their children’s 
language use across different contexts to maximize HL affordances. 

One way families support HL maintenance is by curating or creating digital content that 
reflects their language and culture. Whether it’s sharing community news, posting storytelling 
videos, or circulating announcements for cultural or religious events, these practices help bridge 
home language use with broader ethnolinguistic networks (Liu, 2021). In doing so, families 
expand the reach of HL beyond the private space of the home, creating a sense of belonging and 
continuity in digital communities. 

Parents also play a hands-on role in guiding and regulating their children’s digital 
engagement. Many seek out apps, websites, or media that support HL learning, whether 
explicitly educational or more informal, like music or cartoons (Little, 2019; Liu, 2021). These 
curated affordances (Georgakopoulou, 2021) are not accidental; they are deliberate efforts to 
make HL exposure both accessible and desirable. Hatoss et al. (2024) describe these efforts as 

 
 



Hosseini/ Emerging Perspectives (2025)  4 
 

part of family digital ecologies, where home values, media choices, and learning come together 
to create rich spaces for HL use and development. 

Importantly, these affordances are not neutral and are often filtered through the family’s 
ideologies. Families are often negotiating against a backdrop of dominant-language content, 
especially English, that is constantly reinforced by biased platform algorithms and broader 
ideologies (Kelly-Holmes, 2024). In doing so, they assert control over their child’s digital 
environment by making decisions that reflect their beliefs about language, culture, and identity 
(Curdt-Christiansen, 2016). 

Affordances in the mesosystem are fluid and subject to change. As children grow, gain 
digital autonomy, and expand their online engagement, parents find themselves re-evaluating and 
renegotiating these affordances. This requires flexibility, digital literacy, and ongoing reflection 
about what HL exposure looks like in a changing world (King et al., 2008; Curdt-Christiansen, 
2018). 

In this way, the management dimension of FLP (Spolsky, 2004) emerges as a dynamic 
and relational process that positions families not merely as consumers of HL digital content, but 
as planners and educators who co-construct linguistic spaces through affective, agentive, and 
multimodal practices (Hatoss et al., 2024). They are not just reacting to external forces, but 
actively creating the conditions in which HL can be nurtured.  

3. Exosystem 

In Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model, the exosystem includes settings that 
individuals, in this case immigrant children, do not directly participate in but still influence their 
everyday experiences in meaningful ways. In the context of HL maintenance, exosystems can 
include digital spaces like diaspora networks, parenting forums, and multilingual family groups. 
Although parents may not control these spaces, they engage with them regularly, which offers 
powerful affordances for ideological support, resource sharing, and community building 
(Curdt-Christiansen, 2016; King et al., 2008). 

Participation in these digital communities gives families access to collective knowledge 
about HL maintenance strategies, culturally sustaining practices, and educational resources. 
Through dialogue and shared stories, parents negotiate or affirm their language ideologies and 
management strategies, and deal with the deficit-based narratives often reinforced by dominant 
discourses (Curdt-Christiansen, 2016; Piller, 2016). These digital spaces help families 
co-construct shared narratives about language, identity, and belonging, therefore, HL 
maintenance becomes a collective effort tied to collective resilience, cultural pride, and even 
resistance to assimilation (May, 2012). Here, the ideology dimension of FLP (Spolsky, 2004) 
takes shape not just within individual households but through broader networks of social support 
and shared understanding. 

At the same time, these affordances are not equally available to everyone. Families with 
stronger digital skills, more linguistic capital, or socioeconomic resources are often better 
positioned to benefit from these communities (Piller, 2016). Therefore, while digital 
communities offer significant potential for ideological support, practical resources, and a sense 
of empowerment, they can also reflect and reproduce the same social inequalities that exist 
offline. 

4. Macrosystem 

 
 



Hosseini/ Emerging Perspectives (2025)  5 
 

The outermost layer in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model, the macrosystem, 
encompasses broad ideologies, socioeconomic structures, and policy frameworks that shape all 
other layers of development. In the context of HL maintenance in immigrant families, the 
macrosystem sets the overarching conditions under which digital affordances are accessed and 
experienced.  

In today’s digital world, these macrosystemic forces manifest through platform algorithms, 
advertising models, and global media flows that consistently prioritize dominant languages while 
marginalizing minority ones (Makarova & Xiang, 2024; Piller, 2016). Even as they are praised 
for linguistic diversity, digital technologies often operate within commercial ecosystems that 
privilege dominant-language content (May, 2012). As a result, immigrant families often struggle 
to find meaningful and accessible HL content or see their language practices authentically 
represented in digital spaces. 

These patterns are reinforced by national education and media discourses that often frame 
HLs as private or cultural extras rather than public resources, leaving families who prioritize 
them feeling marginalized or questioned about the practicality of their efforts (Piller, 2016; May, 
2012). Such framings can shape how families perceive their language goals; whether they feel 
empowered, discouraged, or somewhere in between (Curdt-Christiansen, 2016). From an FLP 
perspective, the macrosystem reveals that HL maintenance is not merely a matter of personal 
choice or access to tools but is shaped by broader forces (Spolsky, 2004; Curdt-Christiansen, 
2018) that influence which languages are seen as legitimate, valuable, or worth maintaining. 

Families may be doing creative and meaningful work across the micro-, meso-, and 
exosystems, but without changes at the macrosystemic level, like inclusive language policies, 
equitable platform design, and more supportive public narratives, those efforts can remain 
fragmented and unequal. As Hatoss et al. (2024) point out, supporting HLs in digital, translocal 
contexts requires a shift in how we think about language planning. It’s not just about preserving 
HLs, it’s about creating inclusive and flexible spaces where youth, families, and communities 
can engage with language in ways that reflect their needs and identities. 

Conclusion 

HL maintenance in immigrant populations is not merely a private or individual task; it is 
an ecological process shaped by daily routines, community dynamics, digital participation, and 
broader sociopolitical forces (van Lier, 2004; Piller, 2016; Curdt-Christiansen, 2016; Hatoss et 
al., 2024). Immigrant families are not passive recipients of external pressures; they are active 
agents who thoughtfully and resourcefully shape their children’s linguistic environments. These 
efforts deserve recognition not only within families and communities but also in wider 
conversations on language policy, educational practice, and digital innovation.  

While much attention has been paid to how macrosystemic forces influence FLPs, the flow 
in the other direction is equally critical. Everyday HL practices, often overlooked, can offer 
valuable insights that should inform the development of more inclusive and responsive 
resources, technologies, and policies. Macrosystems must not only shape family practices but 
also learn from them. Recognizing this reciprocal, non-hierarchical relationship is essential for 
building systems that genuinely support and empower immigrant populations.  

 
 



Hosseini/ Emerging Perspectives (2025)  6 
 

References 

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and 
design. Harvard University Press. 

Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2013). Negotiating family language policy: Doing homework. In M. 
Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.), Successful family language policy: Parents, children and 
educators in interaction (pp. 277–295). Springer. 

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1127926 

Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2018). Family language policy. In J. W. Tollefson & M. 
Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 
420–441). Oxford University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190458898.013.21 

Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., & La Morgia, F. (2018). Managing heritage language development: 
Opportunities and challenges for Chinese, Italian and Pakistani Urdu-speaking families in 
the UK. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 37(2), 
177–200. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2017-0019 

Gee, J. P. (2004). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave 
Macmillan. 

Hatoss, A., Nordstrom, J., & Lamb, T. (2024). Planning and teaching heritage languages in the 
translocal and digital space.Current Issues in Language Planning, 25(5), 
475–487.https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2024.2388991 

Kelly-Holmes, H. (2024). Language ideologies, digital technology and emerging hierarchies of 
knowledge. In B. Arendt & G. Reershemius (Eds.), Heritage languages in the digital age: 
The case of autochthonous minority languages in Western Europe (pp. 15–34). 
Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800414235-004  

King, K. A., Fogle, L., & Logan-Terry, A. (2008). Family language policy. Language and 
Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 907–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00076.x 

Liu, K. (2021). Language choices as audience design strategies in Chinese multilingual speakers’ 
WeChat posts. Global Media and China, 6(4), 391-415. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/20594364211035201    

Little, S. (2019). ‘Is there an app for that?’ Exploring games and apps among heritage language 
families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(3), 218–229. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1502776 

Makarova, V., & Xiang, Q. (2024). Language policies of Mandarin Chinese speaking immigrant 
parents in Canada vis-à-vis heritage Mandarin proficiencies by their children. In V. 
Makarova & Q. Xiang (Eds.), Family and school involvement in multilingual education 
and heritage language development (pp. 170–192). Brill. 
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004702325_009 

May, S. (2012). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of 
language (2nd ed.). Routledge. 

 
 

https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1127926
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190458898.013.21
https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2017-0019
https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2024.2388991
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800414235-004
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00076.x
https://doi.org/10.1177/20594364211035201
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1502776
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004702325_009


Hosseini/ Emerging Perspectives (2025)  7 
 

Mora, R. A. (2014). Technology, digital literacies, and language ecologies: Rethinking the 
intersection between technology, digital literacies and language ecologies. Enletawa 
Journal, 7, 115–128. https://doi.org/10.19053/2011835X.3695  

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 

Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice: An introduction to applied 
sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press. 

Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge University Press. 

van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural 
perspective. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7912-5  

 

 
 

https://doi.org/10.19053/2011835X.3695
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1394027
https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7912-5

