Research on language acquisition demonstrate that in most cases, the family is the primary basis and starting point of education, positive socialization with the mother tongue, and mother tongue education. The family, as the primary factor of socialization, makes a decision that is very important for the future, taking into account linguistic socialization, thereby planning the linguistic future of children (Piller, 2002). Family language policy can be defined as an “explicit and overt planning in relation to language use within the home among family members” (King et al., 2013).

Representatives of this field of research (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009; Luykx, 2005) have attempted to integrate theory, public policy data, and language areas of children’s language acquisition. The main research preoccupations concerned “family language ideologies (how family members think about language), language practices (what they do with language), and language management (what they try to do with language)” (Spolsky, 2004).Monolingual families mostly have their own language policy, for example in terms of practical use or politeness (Blum-Kulka, 1997; Spolsky, 2004). An important area of ​​research on family language policies is how family decisions provide the framework for parental interaction and the linguistic development of children (De Houwer, 2017).

Much research has focused on bilingual and even multilingual families, in order to better understand how to preserve the inherited language(s) in their homes. These studies took into account a number of factors in order to promote child bilingualism policies, including parental consistency, child age, social contexts, and support (De Houwer, 2017). While there is no specific language policy for a bilingual family (e.g., one parent is monolingual only) and due to the fact that the child is regularly acquainted with the two languages, research suggests that a home language policy that reflects multilingualism cannot be ignored (Döpke, 1998).

An increasing number of researches examine the critical influence of children on the language use of parents. In contrast to previous research which mainly emphasised the role of parents in the linguistic socialisation of children (Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002), more recent work focused on family socialization as a collaborative outcome, i.e., that children are also active participants in their parents’ socialization with languages (Luykx, 2005; Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2011).

Within the outlined theoretical framework the general aim of our research is to reveal the family environment factors related language socialisation strategies of the Hungarian community in the small town of Margitha (Bihor County), with a balanced Hungarian-Romanian population. Our research seeks to explore the role of family socialisation related social factors that influence the motivation and opportunities of students belonging to the Hungarian minority community in learning the Romanian language. (the official state language of Romania).

a)               What are the family related factors that contribute to the linguistic socialization of children ?;

b)               What is the influence of the family upon  children in learning their mother tongue, learning the Romanian language,and the extent to which the Romanian language is present in different language use scenes and stages in the children and young adults life?;

c)               Based on the sociological characteristics of the families of the heterogeneous Hungarian community living in Marghita, what differences can be discovered in the field of learning and use of languages inside and outside family?

During the research, both quantitative and qualitative methods were used. Their combination made it possible to explore the general trends related to Romanian language learning by the children raised in ethnically Hungarian or ethnically heterogeneous (Hungarian-Romanian) families, and also to explore the factors related to family socialisation. The instrument of the quantitative method was the questionnaire survey. The research subjects formed two groups. The first consists of 187 primary and secondary school students (grades V-XII), who belong to the age groups of 13-17. The second group consists of 250 young adults between the ages of 18-45, so it includes members of the population who are in active employment. The use of the 18-45 age group as "young adults" differs somewhat from the usual 15-29 age classification in youth sociology. According to the aspects of the research, we chose this specific interpretation of the "young adult" age group because this age group is typically faced with the dilemmas of their own children's linguistic socialization, and they can recall their school experiences related to Romanian language learning in a relatively short period of time. The following qualitative methods have been used: a) Interviews with local church leaders (priests) concerning the linguistic options within ethnically homogeneous (Hungarian) and heterogeneous (Hungarian-Romanian) families; both interviewees have an insight into the lives of local families, their difficulties and the challenges they face. b) Family background case presentations of the high school students identified as belonging to ethnically heterogeneous (Hungarian-Romanian) families, focusing on linguistic options and influencing factors within the family. In the case of five families, we examined what decisions the families made regarding their child's linguistic future concerning bilingualism, and what results these decisions led to.

In terms of the social conditions of language learning, students who grow up in a homogenous Hungarian environment, whose parents have a low level of education, and who had little or no experience of using the language before school are in the most unfavourable position. In the identity of the children from Hungarian-Romanian mix marriages studying in the Romanian school, however, the Romanian identity element will be the dominant one. Knowledge of the Romanian language of ethnic Hungarian students and young adults shows a weak, but certain or moderately strong correlation with several factors and variables, which are statistically significant; the highest level of education of the parents, the importance of learning the Romanian language according to self-report, the frequency of using the Romanian language in the family, the frequency of watching Romanian TV programs and satisfaction with Romanian language education. Approximately ten percent of the responding students became familiar the Romanian language in the family circle, and are still using it in their family communication today. The frequent use of the language is mostly characteristic of students who have already been introduced to the Romanian language in the family circle, followed by encounters with the Romanian language for the first time in kindergarten or in the childhood play community. The picture of the situation outlined above is also confirmed by our data on the nature, formal and informal nature of language use occasions. The majority of students who have Romanian friends and communicate with them exclusively in Romanian have already encountered the Romanian language in the family circle at home, in early childhood children's groups or at the latest in kindergarten. A large majority of them are raised in the families of parents with higher education.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Discourse pragmatics. Discourse as social interaction, 2, 38-63. Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2009). Invisible and visible language planning: Ideological factors in the family language policy of Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. Language policy, 8(4), 351-375. De Houwer, A. (2017). Bilingual language input environments, intake, maturity and practice. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(1), 19-20. Döpke, S. (1998). Competing language structures: The acquisition of verb placement by bilingual German-English children. Journal of child language, 25(3), 555-584. Garrett, P. B. and Baquedano-López, P. (2002). Language Socialization: Reproduction and continuity, transformation and change. Annual Review of Anthropology. 31, 339-361. Palo Alto, CA, Annual Reviews. Goodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2011). Peer language socialization. The handbook of language socialization, 365-390. King, K. A., Fogle, L., & Logan‐Terry, A. (2008). Family language policy. Language and linguistics compass, 2(5), 907-922. Luykx, A. (2005) Children as socializing agents: Family language policy in situations of language shift. In ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (Vol. 1407, p. 1414). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press Piller, I. (2002). Passing for a native speaker: Identity and success in second language learning. Journal of sociolinguistics, 6(2), 179-208 Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge University Press.