Türkmence-Farsça iki dilli gençlerin bireysel dil politikaları: Günbed-i Kavus örneği

This study explores how Turkmen–Persian bilingual youth residing in Gonbad-e Kavus, Iran, construct, sustain, and negotiate their individual language policies across various domains such as family, community, school, and broader public spaces. Drawing on Nguyen’s (2022) model of language policy, which consists of practised, perceived, and negotiated components, the research aims to analyze the multilayered language use strategies developed by ethnic minority youth in their everyday interactions. The study employs a qualitative methodology, with data collected through semi-structured interviews conducted with young people living in Gonbad-e Kavus. The findings reveal that participants predominantly use Persian in daily communication, while Turkmen is preferred in family settings or in contexts where ethnic identity is foregrounded. Language choices vary significantly by gender: male participants tend to adopt a more normative and preservation-oriented stance toward Turkmen, whereas female participants report more frequent use of Persian. Among the public domains, the school emerges as the most influential space shaping individual language policies. The institutional dominance of Persian in education often marginalizes the ethnic language. However, some youth demonstrate resistance by maintaining bilingual practices in peer interactions. Participants perceive their mother tongue not only as a tool of communication but also as a symbol of identity, cultural belonging, and communal solidarity. Accordingly, the language policies developed by individuals reflect both integrative values and instrumental values. The study categorizes the strategies adopted by youth in response to external linguistic pressures under three headings: responding, reinterpreting, and reframing. In conclusion, the linguistic practices of Turkmen youth illustrate dynamic and negotiable individual language policies shaped by the interplay between social context, ideological positioning, and language choice. These practices demonstrate that youth are not passive recipients of language norms, but rather active agents who construct their linguistic realities through ongoing negotiation with the structural forces around them.