Content area
The promotion of Putonghua, as a national language policy in China, has been implemented by drawing on both historical and modern practices. How to preserve the cultural essence of ethnic minority languages alongside strategies to promote Putonghua is worthy of attention. Based on a multilayered framework approach encompassing macro, meso, and micro levels, this study investigated the current status and protection measures of the Mongolian languages in Qian Gorlos Mongolian Autonomous County (Qianguo County), Northeast China. Multiple data were collected by means of policy documents, linguistic landscaping, and semi-structured interviews with community members. Findings reveal positive collaborations among government, schools, families, and local residents for language preservation, with family language planning playing a crucial role at the meso level. Notably, differences in linguistic landscape standardization exist between autonomous counties and provincial-level autonomous regions. Future research should adopt multilayered frameworks to comprehensively investigate minority language use and preservation across regions.
Introduction
The importance of ethnic minority languages has been widely recognized due to their importance in maintaining and passing down traditions (Gherghina et al., 2025; Wang, 2022) and cultural identities across generations (Abu-Ghazaleh Mahajneh & Zehavi, 2022; Pérez-Milans, 2016). However, protecting these languages has always been challenging (Curdt-Christiansen et al., 2023; Hu et al., 2024). Ethnic minority languages have been continuously declining worldwide (Dobrushina & Moroz, 2021; Zhao et al., 2024). China’s complex multilingual environment provides a unique background for establishing and implementing ethnic minority language policies (Feng & Adamson, 2018; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang & Cai, 2021). Mainland China, with a population of approximately 1.4 billion people, is home to 55 officially recognized ethnic minority groups (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2021). China’s language policy has long involved a dual approach: promoting Putonghua (a common speech with pronunciation based on the Beijing dialect) while safeguarding ethnic minority languages. According to Article 19 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, 1982, “The state shall promote the common speech – Putonghua – used nationwide.” In addition, Article 8 of the Law on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language of the People’s Republic of China, which was promulgated in 2000, clearly stipulates the following: “All the ethnic groups shall have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages,” providing a legal basis for the protection of ethnic minority languages. However, during the systematic and dynamic process of promoting Putonghua, balancing its promotion with the protection of the cultural heritage of ethnic minority languages has become a key issue of concern within the academic community.
Existing studies have extensively discussed national policies for ethnic minorities in China (Cao, 2017; Zhang et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2019), family language policies among ethnic groups in China (Gu et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2024; Lam et al., 2025), multilingual education policies in China (Ai et al., 2024; Yao et al., 2024a, 2024b), and language landscapes in the autonomous regions (Du & Coluzzi, 2024; Yao & Nie, 2024; Yao et al., 2024a, 2024b). However, most existing studies adopt a singular focus on isolated dimensions, such as the state, family, school, or the individual, as analytical entry points and overlook the holistic impact and interactive dynamics of language policies and preservation across the national, institutional, societal, and personal levels. In addition, existing research has mostly focused on autonomous regions, with relatively insufficient attention given to autonomous counties.
Therefore, this study draws on the multi-level analysis framework of language acquisition and conducts a multidimensional investigation of the current status and protection measures of Mongolian language use in the Qian Gorlos Mongolian Autonomous County (Qianguo County) in the northeastern region using policy analysis, field surveys, and interviews. This study systematically reviews macro policies, conducts field investigations into meso-level planning, and employs case studies to investigate micro-level experiences. Further, the study examines the protection and inheritance of Mongolian language resources in Qianguo County from a sociolinguistic perspective and proposes compensation mechanisms for existing problems. The following research question is explored: What is the current status of the Mongolian language in Qianguo County in terms of macro, meso, and micro dimensions?
Literature review
Language policies for China’s ethnic minority groups
Over the past two decades, research into China’s ethnic minority language policies has examined three dimensions, including national language policies, familial language policies, and language education policies, and extensively discussed linguistic diversity issues.
Generally, language policy operates as a politically driven decision-making process designed to deliberately shape or regulate linguistic practices and hierarchical statuses within particular sociocultural contexts (Ricento, 2006; Shohamy, 2006). This governance mechanism inherently reflects the “interaction between material and symbolic resources” alongside the “ideologies of language and culture” (Heller, 2013, p. 189). Accordingly, understanding language policy demands recognition of the dynamic, process-oriented nature of such policy–a realm where competing stakeholders continually produce, circulate, or marginalize specific discursive formations through sustained sociopolitical engagement (McCarty, 2011; Shao & Gao, 2019). Given this complexity, contemporary research must move beyond conventional analytical models that reduce policy outcomes to simple tension dynamics. Instead, it should embrace constructivist theoretical lenses to investigate the everyday, fluid, and multidirectional interactions between institutional directives and individual agency, as mediated through evolving identity formations within linguistic ecosystems (Xu, 2019).
In the realm of national language policy, Zhang et al. (2024) examined the developmental trajectory of China’s official policies regulating Putonghua and ethnic minority languages between 1986 and 2021. The analysis centered on shifting priorities between these linguistic groups and identified four distinct phases: Central Government Status Planning (1986–1990), Bilingual Policy Equilibrium (1991–2000), Systematic Putonghua Expansion (2001–2011), and Synchronized Putonghua Promotion with Ethnolinguistic Preservation (2012–2021). The findings indicate that, although recent policy frameworks reframe language as a cultural identifier, the National Language Commission maintains an instrumentalist perspective, emphasizing its pivotal role in driving historical evolution and societal advancement. Based on other research, the evolving policy documents reflect policymakers’ deepening understanding of China’s multilingual complexities (Zhao et al., 2019). Contemporary policies now incorporate diverse linguistic expressions, including regional dialects, and reimagine linguistic diversity as a strategic resource (Shen & Gao, 2019). Notably, the state-sponsored “Preservation of Regional Chinese Varieties Project” (Cao, 2017) exemplifies this shift. Positioned as a resource-driven initiative, Yubao validates multistakeholder participation in safeguarding linguistic diversity through dual value recognition: its intrinsic worth in cultural continuity, identity formation, self-esteem development, and intellectual engagement alongside its extrinsic benefits in national security, diplomatic relations, commerce, media, and public diplomacy (Macías, 1979). This top–down National Language Commission program targets endangered Chinese dialects and minority languages, with a service-oriented mandate explicitly framed through the keyword service. It aims to fulfil national requirements, fortify national security, and function as a vital component of state strategic priorities.
Meanwhile, family language policy (FLP) focuses on explicit or implicit planning within the domestic sphere regarding language use and literacy practices (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009), where family members consciously adopt specific language patterns and literacy activities. This framework encompasses three dimensions: language ideology, language practice, and language management within the family context (Spolsky, 2004, 2012). Through an FLP lens, Lam et al. (2025) examined how family language environments impact Miao language maintenance in southwestern China. The findings revealed the following: (a) Rooted in lived experiences of poverty and ethnic identity, family members developed differentiated perceptions of Putonghua and Miao, fostering a pro-Putonghua FLP ideology. (b) Under this ideology, Putonghua was actively promoted within households, yet kinship bonds sustained residual Miao usage. (c) Although ideological and practice patterns aligned with FLP theoretical frameworks, lax language management measures could jeopardize heritage language transmission. Based on these findings, the study particularly highlights how co-residing family members potentially influence language shift or maintenance processes.
Within the field of language education policy, research must first describe and evaluate policy texts and their effectiveness within historical contexts and then focus on assessing preferential policies designed to address educational inequalities among ethnic minorities (Feng & Sunuodula, 2009). Bilingual policy documents simultaneously emphasize Putonghua promotion and ethnic minority language preservation. Taking the Nuosu dialect of Yi language as a case study, research reveals discrepancies in the positioning of written (literacy) and oral (listening/speaking) competencies within language education policies and practices (Yao et al., 2024a, 2024b). The dynamic and complex interplay between multilingual language practices and sociolinguistic contexts has received significant scholarly attention. For example, existing research consistently demonstrates that sociolinguistic environments, encompassing factors such as language policies, practices, sociolinguistic ideologies, and attitudes (Aronin, 2019; Lo Bianco, 2020; Lovrits, 2024), profoundly shape the development and manifestation of individual multilingual competencies.
Although existing research has explored ethnic minority language policies and preservation from various perspectives, comprehensive analyses integrating the four dimensions of state, family, school, and the individual remain insufficient. The formulation and implementation of language policies is a complex process that involves multi-level, multistakeholder interactions. It encompasses not only top–down policy planning and execution but also bottom–up language practices and feedback. While national policies provide guidance and impose constraints on local practices, this multilayered interaction is also reflected in the reciprocal influence of familial language choices, school resource allocation, and individual language use strategies on policy implementation outcomes. State-level policies determine the fundamental frameworks and resource distribution for language preservation, whereas families and schools serve as core domains for policy implementation. As the ultimate practitioners of these policies, individuals’ linguistic attitudes and behaviors subsequently shape policy adjustments and refinements. Therefore, the dynamic interrelations among these dimensions must be systematically examined at the macro, meso, and micro levels. Only then can we fully reveal the complexity and diversity of ethnic minority language preservation, providing scientific evidence for balancing linguistic diversity with societal development.
Mongolian language maintenance practices in China
According to data from the China Statistical Yearbook (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2021), the national population stands at 1,409.78 million. The Han ethnic group comprises 1,284.45 million people, whereas the Mongolian population totals 6,290,204. Further, the latter accounts for 0.45% of the national population and 5.05% of the total minority population. Mongolians primarily reside in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and Mongolian autonomous prefectures/counties within Xinjiang, Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Gansu, Qinghai, and Hebei provinces. Belonging to the Mongolic branch of the Altaic language family, Mongolian is officially recognized as a minority language by the government.
Existing research into Mongolian language policies and planning primarily focuses on three domains: family language policy, multilingual education, and linguistic landscapes.
Regarding family language policy, the existing research primarily focuses on language use patterns and ethnic identity. Studies have revealed that Mongolian families generally prioritize their native language and demonstrate strong ethnic identity while still maintaining positive attitudes toward Mandarin and English. For instance, Gu et al. (2022) explored the evolution and implementation of family language policy in Mongolian households across three generations in Inner Mongolia, China. The study identified significant generational variations in language proficiency. Grandparents primarily use Mongolian, while parents educated in Mongolian-medium schools exhibit strong bilingualism in Mongolian and Chinese. The younger generations acquire multilingualism through university-level English education but demonstrate a decline in Mongolian writing skills. Notably, family members maintain a steadfast commitment to Mongolian language preservation, viewing it as a critical marker of Mongolian identity. State-level language policies influence family language practices. For example, preferential policies awarding bonus points for Mongolian language proficiency in civil service exams elevate its socio-symbolic value, motivating families to prioritize Mongolian education. Meanwhile, the economic and social significance of Mandarin shapes familial attitudes toward language learning, with parents supporting their children’s acquisition of Chinese and English alongside Mongolian to secure socioeconomic opportunities. In another study, Hu et al. (2024) analyzed and compared family language policies across two cohorts separated by over two decades of educational reform, examining how Mongolian families navigate the contexts of both dominant and minority language education. The study highlighted contemporary tensions and adaptations in language policy implementation, shaped by parental ideologies conflicting with educational medium choices. For instance, despite emphasizing Mongolian’s emotional and cultural values by creating home-based language environments, some parents simultaneously opt for Mandarin-medium mainstream education. This choice results in children predominantly using Mandarin in school and home settings, leading to diminished Mongolian proficiency and language attrition. These findings underscore the dynamic, context-dependent nature of family language policy, shaped by shifting educational policies, mainstream societal prioritization of Mandarin, and divergent individual visions for Mongolian’s future.
Regarding multilingual education, research has revealed that Mongolian students commonly receive trilingual education; however, attitudes towards Mongolian language learning vary across studies. Zhao (2014) conducted narrative interviews with 12 trilingual Mongolian students in Inner Mongolia, supplemented by field observations, to explore the students’ learning experiences in trilingual education (Mongolian, Mandarin, and English) and its impact on empowerment and future development. The study found that Mongolian students primarily use Mongolian in private domains during university, such as taking classroom notes and reading Mongolian books and journals. However, limited usage opportunities led to declining Mongolian proficiency, particularly in writing. More critically, due to the high-stakes testing emphasis on Mandarin and English, students strategically deprioritized formal Mongolian language study. Wei et al. (2021), in contrast, surveyed Mongolian university students across four Inner Mongolian institutions to assess language attitudes (towards Mandarin, Mongolian, English, and trilingualism), revealing highly positive trilingual attitudes aligned with favorable views of each language. Specifically, students expressed a strong emotional attachment to Mongolian while perceiving Mandarin and English as instrumentally valuable. In another study, Ai et al. (2024) employed interpretative phenomenological analysis to examine the multilingual experiences of Mongolian bilinguals in Inner Mongolia across school and daily life and determine how those experiences influence ethnic identity. The findings indicated early language learning challenges in school, particularly with Mandarin and English. As education progressed, English learning became exam-oriented rather than interest-driven. Outside of school, participants encountered limited opportunities for Mongolian usage, sparking ethnic awareness and appreciation for the language. Despite learning Mandarin and English in school, participants preferred Mongolian in daily interactions, especially with co-ethnics. Notably, while studies vary in their findings on attitudes toward Mongolian usage, they all consistently highlight a decline in Mongolian writing proficiency as a widespread phenomenon.
Beyond student-focused research, Wu et al. (2024) examined how Mongolian teachers and teacher trainees in Inner Mongolia, China, negotiate their ethnic identities when teaching Mandarin as a second language, their perceptions of Mandarin's linguistic and cultural significance, and how they balance Mongolian and Mandarin in their pedagogy. The semi-structured interviews used in the study revealed that, while teachers support the integration of Mongolian culture into Mandarin textbooks, they disagreed on specific methods and proportions. Some teachers advocated for preserving the distinctiveness of Mongolian language and culture, opposing excessive integration to avoid blurring ethnic boundaries. However, others emphasized balancing both Mongolian and Han cultures in instruction to promote ethnic harmony.
In terms of linguistic landscapes, Du and Coluzzi (2024) focused on the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, analyzing its influencing factors and exploring its role in maintaining Mongolian and Korean as ethnic languages. The study employed a mixed-methods approach by observing language signage in three major cities of Inner Mongolia—Hohhot, Baotou, and Hulunbuir—and interviewing residents about their attitudes toward the linguistic landscape. Overall, the results showed that Inner Mongolia's linguistic landscape exhibits rich diversity, with most signs (61.9%) displaying multilingual content. Bilingual signs (44%) were the most common, followed by monolingual signs (38.1%) and trilingual signs (16.8%). The four primary factors shaping Inner Mongolia's linguistic landscape were identified as language planning, language preferences, economic development needs, and tourism demands.
Collectively, the existing studies outlined above demonstrate that current research into Mongolian language policy and planning has made significant progress in areas such as family language policy, multilingual education, and linguistic landscapes. However, certain limitations persist. From the perspective of family language policy, studies have revealed generational shifts in language proficiency and their complex relationship with ethnic identity. However, these studies lack comprehensive comparative analyses of adaptive strategies employed by Mongolian families in diverse, multilingual environments across different regions. Regarding multilingual education, although research has examined the experiences and attitudes of Mongolian students and teachers in trilingual education, deeper investigations into the long-term impacts of educational policy changes on the status of Mongolian and the specific mechanisms of language proficiency development across educational stages are needed. Furthermore, although linguistic landscape studies have elucidated interactions between language policy and local culture, analyses of Mongolian's symbolic significance and dynamic changes in public social spaces remain insufficient. Future research could further integrate multidisciplinary perspectives and combine quantitative and qualitative methods to explore pathways for Mongolian's maintenance and development within multilayered sociopolitical structures, providing more practical and meaningful theoretical support for minority language preservation.
The present study selects Qian Gorlos Mongolian Autonomous County in Northeast China as the case site, adopting the three-tier framework proposed by Douglas Fir (2016), including macro (morphological forces), meso (community influences), and micro levels (individual practices), to investigate Mongolian language policy and conservation practices. Theoretically, the current study addresses regional gaps in existing research. While the academic focus on minority language policy and practice has largely concentrated on autonomous regions and prefectures, insufficient attention has been paid to language ecologies and policy implementation within autonomous counties as administrative units. The in-depth analysis of this specific context in Qian Gorlos County remedies imbalances in regional research and enriches the academic understanding of minority language preservation. Moreover, by comprehensively examining Mongolian protection and inheritance across three dimensions, including national policy (macro), local practices (meso), and individual experiences (micro), this study transcends the limitations of single-dimensional analyses in traditional research, offering new theoretical perspectives for minority language studies. Concurrently, by exploring interactive relationships among different stakeholders (state, school, family, and individual) in policy formulation and implementation processes, this study reveals the complexity of language policy as a dynamic process and deepens the theoretical comprehension of language policy.
Practically, this study provides empirical support for optimizing minority language preservation policies, particularly offering scientific bases for policymakers to balance Mandarin promotion and minority language protection. Through a detailed analysis of the Mongolian language ecology in Qian Gorlos County, targeted conservation measures are proposed. These measures serve as references for language resource protection practices at the autonomous county level. Additionally, the study uncovers declining trends in Mongolian written proficiency and their underlying causes, providing practical evidence for local education departments to formulate multilingual education strategies and optimize the allocation of teaching resources. Furthermore, as a vital carrier of Mongolian cultural heritage, the preservation of Mongolian language strengthens ethnic cultural identity and promotes inter-ethnic cultural understanding and social harmony.
Methods
Research site
This study was conducted in a Mongol autonomous county located in northeastern China. Qianguo County, established in 1956, remains the only Mongol autonomous county within its provincial jurisdiction. Geographically, it borders Ningjiang District of Songyuan City to the east, Nong’an County of Changchun City to the south, Tongyu County and Da’an City of Baicheng City to the west, and Qian’an County of Songyuan City to the north, forming a complex geographical setting. With a total population of approximately 563,000, Mongolians constitute 11% of the population, making them the largest minority group in the county. Commercial interactions and inter-ethnic marriages have fostered a multilingual environment comprising Mongolian, Putonghua, and dialects of the northeast area. In addition to Mongolians, the county hosts 14 other ethnic groups, including Manchu (approximately 3.2%), Hui (approximately 0.9%), and Korean (approximately 0.6%), scattered throughout the region. This multi-ethnic coexistence presents a striking contrast to the ethnic distribution in China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, where Mongolians constitute an absolute majority.
Analytical framework
The multilayered framework emerged as a critique of single-perspective cognitive linguistic approaches to second language acquisition (SLA), positing language acquisition as a complex ecological system shaped by the interplay among macro-level ideologies, meso-level language communities, and micro-level individual practices (Douglas Fir, 2016). Similarly, language planning requires not only top–down institutional governance but also broad social participation (Xu et al., 2024), involving three levels of agents represented by governments, communities, and families. Building on this alignment, scholars represented by Higgins (2018) and Zheng and Mei (2021) adapted the multilayered framework to language planning studies, elucidating how macro-level ideological forces and meso-level community practices interact with micro-level family language planning in multilingual contexts.
Guided by this multilayered framework (Douglas Fir, 2016), this study conducted data collection and analysis to investigate the maintenance of Mongolian in Qianguo County. At the macro level, ideological forces were operationalized through national laws, regulations, and language policies enacted by governmental authorities. The meso level conceptualized Qianguo County as a multilingual community, with a focus on the use of Mongolian within the county. The micro level explored language planning decisions within a Mongolian family in Qianguo County, emphasizing familial agency in linguistic maintenance.
Data source and data collection
In this study, data were collected from three sources: government policy documents, fieldwork conducted in Qianguo County, and in-depth communication with Mongolian youth in from this county. Table 1 outlines the data sources and data collection in this study.
Table 1. Data sources and data collection at the macro, meso, and micro levels
Macro Level | Meso Level | Micro Level | |
|---|---|---|---|
Data source | Laws, regulations, policy documents | Language landscape, Mongolian media | Family self-report language beliefs and practices |
Data collection | Official websites | Field investigation | Semi-structured interview and self-report |
At the macro level, the researchers conducted policy analysis of laws, regulations, and policy documents related to language use and maintenance issued by the central and local government from official websites. This approach aimed to identify overarching trends in minority language maintenance and develop a scientific understanding of contemporary language planning practices in China.
At the meso level, fieldwork in Qianguo County included collecting linguistic landscape photos and assessing the influence of Mongolian media in the county. The rationale for collecting these two data sets was grounded in the notion that the linguistic landscape served as a common analytical lens for studying language representation in multilingual settings (Du & Coluzzi, 2024), whereas media acted as a critical tool for fostering public engagement in language preservation and usage (Wang, 2017). During this process, field notes and photographic documentation were recorded.
At the micro level, semi-structured interviews and a self-reported questionnaire were collected to investigate family language planning practices among Mongolian youth in the county. Researchers first distributed questionnaires to students participating in a combined Mongolian and Putonghua instruction program at a Mongolian high school in Qianguo County to identify participants meeting the “information-rich and accessible” criteria (Patton, 2015). Students participated in combined Mongolian and Putonghua instruction programs, forming a class per grade (totaling three classes) in this high school, representing the only Mongolian high school in the county. All students in these classes were Mongolian youth who needed to take an additional Mongolian test as part of the National College Entrance Examination. Following the questionnaire survey, researchers selected a Mongolian family from these classes for in-depth analysis. This traditional Mongolian family consisted of parents engaged in Mongolian education and their two children. These two children experienced divergent language planning decisions. Gabyaa (pseudonym, a common name for Mongolian girls), the younger sister who participated in the combined Mongolian and Putonghua instruction program, was raised exclusively by her parents using Putonghua, a northeast dialect. Upon entering high school, she was enrolled in the Mongolian high school to learn Mongolian. In contrast, her elder brother demonstrated fluent Mongolian conversational skills during early childhood. However, from age six, his parents discouraged Mongolian use and enrolled him in international schools to obtain a Putonghua and English education. The family’s complex intergenerational language planning and multilingual educational trajectories motivated their selection for further investigation. A 60-min semi-structured interview was conducted with Gabyaa in Putonghua to ensure communicative fluency and data accuracy. With the consent of Gabyaa, the interview was recorded using professional instruments. Researchers also contacted Gabyaa’s brother through her assistance. Given his overseas residency, time zone differences, and personal commitments, he could not participate in the interview. However, he submitted a comprehensive written report of his past language environment and learning experiences. The textual data from Gabyaa and her brother formed mutually corroborative evidence used for this analysis.
Data analysis
At the macro level, the analysis of laws, regulations, and policy documents involved close reading of original texts to identify and annotate keywords related to official provisions on minority language use and maintenance. This process aimed to delineate the ideological orientations of both central and local governments (Zheng & Mei, 2021).
At the meso level, the linguistic landscape analysis focused on signage along Chagan Nur Commercial road in Qianguo County, including street names, billboards, and signs on shops. Duplicate signs were counted only once, and only complete, legible signs were included. Using Cenoz and Gorter’s analytical framework (2006), three characteristics of collected signage were examined: (1) language frequency; (2) linguistic combinations (monolingual, bilingual, trilingual); and (3) linguistic prominence (the most prominent language(s) on signs). Additionally, according to notes taken during fieldwork, the researchers utilized the Internet to conduct a secondary verification and collation of the current situation of Mongolian media in Qianguo County and the spontaneous Mongolian learning activities of the county residents.
At the micro level, thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was applied to textual data from the semi-structured interview and self-reported questionnaire to interpret themes pertinent to Research Question 3. The researchers repeatedly read the original textual data to determine the meanings and themes and to reveal the language ideology, the language practices of the young generation in this Mongolian family, and how the family’s multilingual planning affected their language practices.
Findings
Maintenance of Mongolian use at the macro level
In January 2021, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued the revised “Regulations on the United Front Work of the Communist Party of China,” which sought “to promote the inheritance, protection, innovation, and integration of various ethnic cultures, comprehensively popularize the national common spoken and written language, and respect and support the learning and use of spoken and written languages of ethnic minorities.” The Regulation demonstrates the intended mutually reinforcing and complementary relationship between the popularization of Putonghua and the protection of minority languages during the critical period of comprehensively building a moderately prosperous society and consolidating the achievements in poverty eradication. China’s current laws, regulations, and policies protect the use of minority languages in litigation, law enforcement, education, and the right to use written language. Provisions such as “legal documents shall, according to actual needs, be written in one or more locally common languages,” “when performing their duties, the autonomous authorities in ethnic autonomous areas shall use one or more locally common languages in accordance with the regulations on autonomy in those areas,” “bilingual education,” and “ for the content registered in Chinese characters on resident identity cards may, as required, be simultaneously expressed in the script of the ethnic group exercising regional autonomy or in a commonly used local script,” exemplify these protections.
Under the leadership of the Party Central Committee, the Qian Gorlos Mongolian Autonomous County and the Jilin Provincial People’s Congress discussed and formulated the “Regulations on Autonomy of the Qian Gorlos Mongolian Autonomous County” (2007) (hereinafter referred to as the “Autonomy Regulations”) and the “Regulations on the Work of Mongolian Spoken and Written Language in the Qian Gorlos Mongolian Autonomous County” (1996) (hereinafter referred to as the “Language Regulations”). Building upon the Constitution, Articles 6, 21, 60, and 72 of the “Autonomy Regulations” defined the significant role of the Mongolian language in education, justice, and other fields in Qianguo County. The “Language Regulations” also imposed requirements on the learning and use, translation, standardization, and research of the Mongolian spoken and written language.
Integrating Mongolian into daily life at the meso level
Chagan Nur road is a commercial place in Qianguo County. In this study, the signage of street names, billboards, and signs on shops were photographed. Each independent signage was regarded as the unit of analysis rather than each individual character symbol (Cenoz & Gorter, 2006). As illustrated in Fig. 1, both official street signs and private business advertisements displayed Chinese and Mongolian texts in parallel with comparable font sizes. This configuration demonstrated the equal prominence of Chinese and Mongolian in Qianguo County’s linguistic landscape while ensuring legibility in both languages (Du & Coluzzi, 2024).
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 1
Signs in Qianguo County
Table 2 quantified the types and combinations of linguistic codes found in Qianguo County’s linguistic landscape. Bilingual configurations dominated the county’s linguistic landscape. Specifically, 100% of street names employed both Chinese and Mongolian scripts, while 82.4% of sign on shops featured bilingual Mongolian–Chinese displays. The remaining minority of shop signs employing trilingual codes exclusively incorporate abbreviated English expressions such as “TEL.” This distribution reflected a balance maintained between the “promotion of Putonghua” and the “maintenance of minority languages” (Du & Coluzzi, 2024).
Table 2. Types and distributions of language codes (Mandarin, Mongolian, and English) used in Qianguo County’s linguistic landscape
Types | Street Names | Signs on Shops | Billboards | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | % | N | % | N | % | |
One language | ||||||
Mandarin | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 1 | 100% |
Mongolian | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
English | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
Two languages | ||||||
Mandarin & Mongolian | 5 | 100% | 14 | 82.4% | 0 | 0% |
Mandarin & English | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
Mongolian & English | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
Three languages | ||||||
Mandarin, Mongolian & English | 0 | 0% | 3 | 17.6% | 0 | 0% |
Total | 5 | 100% | 17 | 100% | 1 | 100% |
However, inaccuracies persisted in the Mongolian script within Qianguo County’s linguistic landscape. For instance, the second character in the sign of shops shown in Fig. 2 (corresponding to “淼” in the Putonghua text) and the final two characters in the signage shown in Fig. 3 (corresponding to “粥铺” in Putonghua) displayed erroneous Mongolian script. Researchers commissioned native Mongolian writers to produce corrected versions of these inscriptions, as illustrated by the “√”-marked texts in Figs. 2 and 3. Extraneous or missing strokes in the Mongolian script directly disrupted phonetic accuracy and semantic coherence, rendering the intended meaning unintelligible. Furthermore, such errors in public signage might exert detrimental pedagogical influence on language learners at critical acquisition stages.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 2
Example of a mistake in Mongolian on a billboard and the correct form
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 3
Example of a mistake in Mongolian on a billboard and the correct form
Media serves as a vital tool for fostering public engagement in language maintenance efforts. Songyuan Daily, the most influential traditional print medium in Qianguo County, was established in 1993 as the exclusive official newspaper of the municipal Party committee and is published exclusively in Chinese. On November 17, 2021, Songyuan Daily featured a report titled “Remarkable Outcomes of Bilingual Community Initiatives in Qianguo County’s Mengya Neighborhood,” highlighting a Mongolian maintenance campaign. This initiative offered free public courses, including Mongolian–Chinese bilingual instruction, calligraphy (both hard-tip and brush styles), and horsehead fiddle (morin khuur) lessons taught by volunteer educators drawn from local primary and secondary school faculties. Additionally, “Qian Guo News”, produced by Qianguo County’s Radio and Television Station, enjoyed high viewership in the region. The program employed a bilingual broadcast format using Mongolian and Putonghua, with its Mongolian anchor consistently appearing in traditional Mongolian attire during segments (Fig. 4).
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 4
Screenshot from “Qianguo News.” The female anchor on the left, dressed in Mongolian dress, broadcasts the news in Mongolian
However, during the investigation, a local Mongolian resident mentioned that “there was no Mongolian newspaper for the general public in Qianguo County, although some governmental newspapers had internal Mongolian versions for circulation.” Additionally, some residents noted that although new media channels, represented by WeChat official accounts, were gradually replacing print media, the county had not launched a Mongolian-focused news program. This hindered ordinary residents’ access to and engagement with their ethnic language in daily life.
Two directions in one family at a micro level
Through the self-reporting from Gabyaa’s elder brother and an in-depth semi-structured interview conducted with Gabyaa, it could be observed that despite being raised in the same family, the two Mongolian youths experienced fundamentally divergent family language planning trajectories. For Gabyaa’s brother, family language exerted a profound influence on both family language management and daily language practices. In contrast, Gabyaa’s family language planning was predominantly shaped by national educational policies.
The story of Gabyaa’s brother: “Stop speaking Mongolian! How can you make friends at school!”
Family Language Practices. Due to the parents’ prolonged entrepreneurial ventures elsewhere, Gabyaa’s elder brother was raised by his grandmother in Qianguo County during his early childhood. As the grandmother exclusively spoke Mongolian, family language practice during this period occurred exclusively in Mongolian, allowing Gabyaa’s brother to develop fluent conversational proficiency in the language while remaining entirely non-literate in Putonghua. However, upon approaching elementary school age, his parents concluded their business endeavors and returned to Qianguo County. Both parents soon discovered his linguistic isolation—his inability to communicate in Putonghua hindered social integration with other peers. As a result, the parents began to exclusively speak Putonghua with Gabyaa’s brother and managed to create a Putonghua-speaking environment in the family.
Family Language Management. The parents enrolled Gabyaa’s brother in a Han Chinese primary school outside the autonomous county, with a Putonghua-only speaking policy. Beyond school hours, his mother devoted substantial time to both written and spoken Putonghua instruction. Concurrently, as part of their long-term plan to send him abroad for education, they initiated English training. By early adolescence, Gabyaa’s brother experienced accelerated attrition of Mongolian literacy, culminating in a complete loss of communicative competence in Mongolian.
Family Language Ideology. Gabyaa’s brother attributed his parents’ language planning decisions to their entrepreneurial experiences, which entrenched their belief in Putonghua and English as the “keys to life transformation.” These languages were perceived as possessing greater lingua franca utility compared to Mongolian. Although the parents recognized Mongolian’s intrinsic connection to cultural identity and ethnic belonging, their aspiration for their children to “access broader horizons” motivated the exclusive prioritization of Putonghua and English in language planning (Spolsky, 2004).
The story of Gabyaa: “Learn Mongolian! To get extra bonuses on your college entrance exam!”.
According to Gabyaa, her parents had been engaged in Mongolian education for years prior to her birth. She grew up in a nuclear family comprising her parents, elder brother, and herself, where communication occurred exclusively in Putonghua. Although Gabyaa attended Han schools from kindergarten onward, her parents remained dissatisfied with her academic performance. Driven by national educational policies—specifically, the provision granting Mongolian students 10 extra points on the National College Entrance Examination for Mongolian language test participation—her mother initiated extracurricular Mongolian instruction during Gabyaa’s third year of junior school, subsequently enrolling her in a Mongolian high school as a student of the combined Mongolian and Putonghua instruction program.
Despite four years of Mongolian study and leveraging the language bonus to secure admission to a prestigious university, Gabyaa expressed regrets during the interview. She emphasized to researchers that written Mongolian and spoken Mongolian constitute entirely distinct systems, even asserting that they could be “interpreted as two separate languages” (Gabyaa, semi-structured interview). As the National College Entrance Examination exclusively assesses written Mongolian, both her mother’s tutoring and school instruction focused exclusively on literacy skills, leaving her spoken Mongolian at a post-beginner level. While existing educational policies incentivize some Mongolian youth in Qianguo County to pursue written Mongolian proficiency, they provide neither motivation nor temporal space for the acquisition of spoken Mongolian. Throughout her interview, Gabyaa recurrently articulated self-perceived linguistic inadequacies through statements such as “My (spoken) Mongolian is very poor,” “I cannot communicate in (spoken) Mongolian,” and “I have difficulty understanding conversations among relatives, I only understand a little.”
Discussion
In the multicultural context, the maintenance of Mongolian in Qianguo County had evolved into a multilayered interactive ecosystem. At the macro level, laws, regulations, and language policies permeate meso- and micro-level practices, guiding the implementation of Mongolian maintenance initiatives while directly shaping Mongolian families’ language planning through educational policies. The meso level served as a bridge between the macro and micro levels. Bilingual/multilingual linguistic landscapes and Mongolian-language media coverage in Qianguo County operationalized the dual imperative to “promote Putonghua while scientifically preserving minority languages,” embedding this ideology into individuals’ daily lives. Simultaneously, community-driven initiatives—such as free Mongolian language classes organized by local residents—actively cultivate bilingual vitality within the linguistic community. At the micro level, individuals and families unconsciously internalize macro- and meso-level influences through daily practices, contributing to the maintenance of Mongolian culture while exposing gaps in current efforts.
Similar aspiration to higher education
Although in the Mongolian family described in this study, the parents’ language planning for the two children showed two completely opposite directions (Gabyaa’s elder brother first used Mongolian as his native language; however, since primary school, he exclusively learned Putonghua and English. In contrast, Gabyaa was required only to learn written Mongolian in the third year of junior high school); these language management practices all reflected the same strong belief of East Asian families in supporting their children to receive better higher education.
The transformation of the parents’ ideological understanding of Mongolian in this traditional Mongolian family stemmed from the introduction of the state’s latest education policies for ethnic minority areas. To achieve educational equity, China’s education policies provide support for ethnic minorities, including preferential policies for these students to obtain higher education and the promotion of bilingual education (Tang, 2002). The policy of receiving an additional 10 points for taking the written language portion of the National College Entrance Examination in Mongolian directly reversed the language plan of this family.
This discovery also revealed the influence of macro policies on the language management decisions of micro families (Zheng & Mei, 2021). This echoed what was reported by Curdt-Christiansen (2013, p.1), noting that the study of family language planning could demonstrate the interaction between the public sphere and the private family sphere. In addition, at the macro level, education and language policies form a joint force to promote the cohesion of the national Chinese community.
Tolerance toward cultural mistakes
According to Article 22 of the Regulations on Mongolian Language Work in Qian Guo County Mongolian Autonomous County, government agencies, social organizations, enterprises, and public institutions are required to use both Mongolian and Chinese scripts on official seals, document headers, signage, vehicle markings, certificates, and public infrastructure, including road signs, village markers, street nameplates, and doorplates. Consequently, commercial establishments in the county, including restaurants, convenience stores, and pharmacies, predominantly adopted bilingual signage, forming a cohesive bilingual linguistic landscape. Enhancing the visibility of minority languages in linguistic landscapes constitutes a foundational step toward improving their social recognition and vitality (Puzey, 2012). Du and Coluzzi (2024) argued that linguistic landscapes contributed to minority language maintenance by amplifying their physical and visual representation. This study’s linguistic landscape analysis aligns with prior research emphasizing language awareness and perception of minority language maintenance efforts (Arias Álvarez & Bernardo-Hinesley, 2024; Gorter et al., 2021).
Simultaneously, the Mongolian–Chinese bilingual linguistic landscape creates opportunities for young Mongolians to encounter their heritage language outside familial or educational settings. Such exposure may incentivize younger generations to use the language, thereby facilitating intergenerational transmission (Du & Coluzzi, 2024). The role of bilingual signage in promoting minority language acquisition necessitates heightened attention to normative accuracy. In Qianguo County, current linguistic landscapes are constrained by the limited Mongolian proficiency of sign producers, resulting in orthographic errors and omissions. Compared to the Mongolian–Chinese linguistic landscapes in China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Mongolian residents in Qianguo County exhibit greater tolerance toward such inaccuracies. The questionnaire revealed that Mongolian youth universally recognize script errors but also perceive gradual improvements. This finding suggests that in multi-ethnic residential areas, ethnic minorities retain strong identity affiliations while adopting more open attitudes toward cultural hybridity.
The neglect of spoken Mongolian
As Gabyaa mentioned in the semi-structured interview, Mongolian can be divided into written and spoken Mongolian, and there are often cases of “being able to speak but not write, or being able to write but not speak (Gabyaa, semi-structured interview)”. Existing laws, regulations, and education policies focus on the protection of the written Mongolian. In May 2015, the Ministry of Education and the State Language Commission issued the “Notice on Launching the Chinese Language Resource Protection Project” (abbreviated as the “Language Protection Project”). The notice announced various tasks nationwide focused on language investigation, preservation, exhibition, development, and utilization. It conducted language and dialect investigations at 1,500 locations across the country from 2015 to 2019. The “Language Protection Project” explicitly requires the unified design of investigation norms and questionnaires from the perspective of language maintenance, enabling effective integration and unified action between the two teams working on Putonghua and minority languages. Mongolian in Qianguo County has also been included in the “Language Protection Project.” This project has collected 3,000 commonly used local Mongolian vocabulary items, 100 daily conversation phrases, and multiple Mongolian songs. Each resource is accompanied by corresponding audio materials that have been preserved in a digitalized format. With the support of national projects, spoken Mongolian in Qianguo County has been actively preserved. However, there is a disconnect between spoken Mongolian audio resources and their use by local residents. Gabyaa mentioned that, “I feel like I always want to learn (spoken Mongolian), and it’s uncomfortable when you claim to be Mongolian but you can’t speak your own language fluently” (Gabyaa, semi-structured interview). Spoken Mongolian also carries national identity. In the future, both written and spoken Mongolian should be given equal importance in language maintenance studies.
Conclusions
This study conducted a multilayered investigation in Qianguo County, the only Mongolian autonomous county in Jilin Province, to understand the current situation regarding the protection and inheritance of Mongolian language resources. This study employed a multi-level analytical framework encompassing macro, meso, and micro levels. At the meso level, family language planning and individual academic or career planning specifically played a crucial role in language preservation. As demonstrated by the participant in the study and her brother, who grew up in the same region and family, their differing life plans set by their parents and their distinct higher education backgrounds led to significant variations in their use of and attitudes toward minority languages. This illustrates that the macro, meso, and micro levels are interdependent and mutually influential. Furthermore, the study found notable differences in the standardization of linguistic landscapes between autonomous counties and provincial-level autonomous regions. Therefore, it is recommended that future research adopt multilayered frameworks to comprehensively investigate the use and preservation of minority languages across multiple regions.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: J. Z. & X. W.; Methodology: Jingying Zuo; Formal analysis and investigation: Jingying Zuo; Writing—original draft preparation: Jingying Zuo; Writing—review and editing: Xuan Wang; Funding acquisition: Xuan Wang; Resources: Jingying Zuo & Xuan Wang; Supervision: Xuan Wang.
Funding
This research was funded by the NPU Research Scheme for Education and Teaching Reform, grant number 2024JGWZ09.
Availability of data and materials
This study was conducted based on the guidelines of the Measures for the Ethical Review of Biomedical Research Involving Humans released by the National Health and Family Planning Commission (China), and consent was received from the Academic Committee of the School of Foreign Studies, Northwestern Polytechnical University. Approval sequence no.: Group1No3; approval date: 13 December 2021.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was conducted based on the guidelines of the Measures for the Ethical Review of Biomedical Research Involving Humans released by the National Health and Family Planning Commission (China), and consent was received from the Academic Committee of the School of Foreign Studies, Northwestern Polytechnical University. Approval sequence no.: Group1No3; approval date: 13 December 2021.All the participants of this study completed a consent form to ensure their voluntary participation.
Consent for publication
All the authors of this study declare their consent for the publication of this paper.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Abu-Ghazaleh Mahajneh, M; Zehavi, A. The balancing act of minority cultural identity expression policy: Palestinian cultural struggles at the Israeli local government level. International Journal of Cultural Policy; 2022; 28,
Ai, D; Stelma, J; Baratta, A. The multilingual lived experience of Mongol-Chinese in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; 2024; 45,
Arias Álvarez, A; Bernardo-Hinesley, S. Language contact, identity building and attitudes towards the use of a minoritized language in the publicspace. Linguistic Landscape: An International Journal; 2024; 10,
Aronin, L. Singleton, D; Aronin, L. What is multilingualism?. Twelve lectures on multilingualism; 2019; Multilingual Matters: pp. 3-34.
Braun, V; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology; 2006; 3,
Cao, Z. Major issues about project for the protection of language resources of China. Chinese Journal of Language Policy and Planning; 2017; 2,
Cenoz, J; Gorter, D. Cenoz, J; Gorter, D; May, S. Linguistic landscape and minority languages. Language awareness and multilingualism; 2006; Springer: pp. 233-245.
Curdt-Christiansen, XL. Invisible and visible language planning: Ideological factors in the family language policy of Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. Language Policy; 2009; 8,
Curdt-Christiansen, XL. Family language policy: Sociopolitical reality versus linguistic continuity. Language Policy; 2013; 12,
Curdt-Christiansen, XL; Wei, L; Hua, Z. Pride, prejudice and pragmatism: Family language policies in the UK. Language Policy; 2023; 22,
Dobrushina, N; Moroz, G. The speakers of minority languages are more multilingual. International Journal of Bilingualism; 2021; 25,
Douglas Fir Group. A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal; 2016; 100,
Du, J; Coluzzi, P. Linguistic landscape in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region: The case of a multilingual and multi-ethnic region in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Advance Online Publication.; 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2024.2376738]
Feng, A; Adamson, B. Language policies and sociolinguistic domains in the context of minority groups in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; 2018; 39,
Feng, A; Sunuodula, M. Analysing language education policy for China’s minority groups in its entirety. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism; 2009; 12,
Gherghina, S; Monika, M; Miscoiu, S. The non-participation of ethnic minorities and migrants in representative and deliberative democracy. Identities; 2025; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2025.2470019]
Gorter, D; Cenoz, J; van der Worp, K. The linguistic landscape as a resource for language learning and raising language awareness. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching; 2021; 8,
Gu, MM; Han, Y; Tang, L. Family language policy in a multilingual Mongolian family in China: A cross-generation exploration. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2099876]
Heller, M. Language and dis-citizenship in Canada. Journal of Language, Identity & Education; 2013; 12,
Higgins, C. Commentary: The mesolevel of family language policy. International Journal of Multilingualism; 2018; 15,
Hu, Y; Kearney, E; Ma, Q; Zhang, Y. A case study of family language policy in interaction with mainstream and minority language education among Mongolian families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2024.2344635]
Lam, SF; Vong, KIP; Wei, B. The malaise of preserving a minority language in multilingual homes in southwest China: A family language policy perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; 2025; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2025.2451042]
Lo Bianco, J. Lo Bianco, J; Aronin, L. A meeting of concepts and praxis: Multilingualism, language policy, and the dominant language constellation. Dominant Language Constellations. Educational Linguistics; 2020; 47 Springer: pp. 35-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52336-7_3]
Lovrits, V. Linguistic authority in the context of European mobility: Addressing the empty promise of élite multilingualism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2024.2321394]
McCarty, TL. McCarty, TL. Introducing ethnography and language policy. Ethnography and language policy; 2011; Routledge: pp. 1-28.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. China statistical yearbook; 2021; China Statistics Press:
Patton, MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods; 2015; Sage:
Pérez-Milans, M. Preece, S. Language and identity in linguistic ethnography. The Routledge handbook of language and identity; 2016; Routledge: pp. 83-97.
Puzey, G. Gorter, D; Heiko, MF; Luk, MV. Two-way traffic: How linguistic landscapes reflect and influence the politics of language. Minority languages in the linguistic landscape; 2012; Palgrave Macmillan: pp. 127-147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230360235_8]
Ricento, T. Ricento, T. Language policy: Theory and practice—An introduction. An introduction to language policy: Theory and method; 2006; Blackwell Publishing: pp. 10-23.
Shao, Q; Gao, X. Protecting language or promoting dis-citizenship? A poststructural policy analysis of the Shanghainese Heritage Project. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism; 2019; 22,
Shen, Q; Gao, X. Multilingualism and policy making in Greater China: Ideological and implementational spaces. Language Policy; 2019; 18,
Shohamy, E. Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches; 2006; Routledge: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203387962]
Spolsky, B. Language policy; 2004; Cambridge University Press:
Spolsky, B. Family language policy – the critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; 2012; 33,
Tang, DX. On preferential policies in minority education in China. Minzu Jiaoyu Yanjiu [research on Education for Ethnic Minorities, in Chinese]; 2002; 13,
Wang, L. On protection of language resources and the film and television archives. Applied Linguistics; 2017; 2, pp. 9-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16499/j.cnki.1003-5397.2017.02.002]
Wang, H; Xia, C; Sun, S. Tibetan students at an interior university in China: Negotiating identity, language, and power. Asia Pacific Journal of Education; 2020; 40,
Wang, L. Collective belonging or individual calling: Language and ethnic identity of minorities in China. Comparative Education Review; 2022; 66,
Wei, R; Jiang, H; Kong, M. Attitudes toward trilingualism: A survey study of Chinese Mongolian university students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; 2021; 42,
Wu, J; McLelland, N; Dauncey, S. Negotiating Mongolian ethnic identity through the teaching of Mandarin Chinese as a second language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; 2024; 45,
Xu, J., Zhou, C., & Liu, H. (2024). Cultural heritage as a key motivation for sustainable language protection: a case study of the Suzhou dialect protection project. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Advance online publication.
Xu, H. Putonghua as “admission ticket” to linguistic market in minority regions in China. Language Policy; 2019; 18,
Yao, J; Peng, N; Zhou, L. Language change and multilingualism in an ethnic city in China: A diachronic linguistic landscape perspective. International Journal of Multilingualism; 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2024.2322472]
Yao, J; Turner, M; Bonar, G. Ethnic minority language policies and practices in China: Revisiting Ruiz’s language orientation theory through a critical biliteracy lens. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; 2024; 45,
Yao, X; Nie, P. Implicit language policy in ethnic minority migrant community in urban China: A study of the linguistic landscape of “Little Lhasa”. Language Policy; 2024; 23,
Zhang, H; Cai, S. Putonghua vs. minority languages: Distribution of language laws, regulations, and documents in mainland China. Ethnic and Racial Studies; 2021; 44,
Zhang, H; Shi, Y; Liu, H. Evolving means of formal language policy on Putonghua and minority languages on the Chinese mainland (1986–2021). International Journal of Multilingualism; 2024; 21,
Zhao, G; Wendy, L; Chang, CH. Bilingual education in a globalized age: An ecological perspective on two Chosonjuk schools in China. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism; 2024; 27,
Zhao, R; Zhou, M; Gao, X. Concluding commentary: The discursive space for bilingual education programs in China. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism; 2019; 22,
Zhao, Z. Leibold, J; Chen, Y. The trilingual trap: “Imagined” empowerment among ethnic Mongols in China. Minority education in China: Balancing unity and diversity in an era of critical pluralism; 2014; Hong Kong University Press: pp. 239-257.
Zheng, Y; Mei, Z. Two worlds in one city: A sociopolitical perspective on Chinese urban families’ language planning. Current Issues in Language Planning; 2021; 22,
© The Author(s) 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.