American/Russian, Israeli or Both:
Language, Identity, and Attitudes among Heritage
English and Russian Speaking Preschool Children,
Israel
Susan Joffe
Hadar Abutbol Oz
Joel Walters
Sharon Armon-Lotem
Bar Ilan University
Sixth Heritage Language Research Institute
June 18 - 22, 2012
University of California, Los Angeles
We gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Heritage Language Research Institute and the Lechter
Foundation.
Social Factors and Motivation in Heritage
Language Maintenance and Second
Language Acquisition
•
Ethnolinguisitic Vitality theory: there is more chance of maintenance when a
minority language has high ethnolinguistic vitality, as defined by demographic,
economic, political and cultural capital (Landry & Allard 1994).
•
In a study of students of heritage languages at universities in the United States,
survey respondents expressed positive attitudes toward their heritage languages,
even as their use of Heritage Languages decreased dramatically upon reaching
school age (Carreira & Kagan 2011).
•
Heritage language learners need strong motivation to maintain their heritage
languages (Montrul 2010).
Background
• 20% of children in the
Israeli schools come
from immigrant families
(Israeli Central Bureau
of Statistics, 2004).
• Immigrant childrens’
encounter with a new
language and culture
may result in changes to
their identities as well.
L2/Hebrew language
proficiency
Ethnolinguistic
Identity
Social
Preferences
Exposure to L2/Hebrew
L2/Language
proficiency
Ethnolinguistic
Identity
Social
Preferences
Research Hypotheses: LOE
• Length of Exposure (LOE) was expected to
correlate with higher performance on Hebrew
standardized tests for both groups.
• Measures of English and Russian syntactic
structures were expected to correlate
negatively with LOE, i.e. more L2 exposure
would lead to lower performance in L1 syntax.
Research Hypotheses: Identity
• Higher Hebrew proficiency was expected to
correlate with stronger Israeli identity and
weaker English/American and Russian
ethnolinguistic identities.
Research Hypotheses:
Attitudes and Social Preferences
• Higher Hebrew proficiency was expected to
correlate with positive attitudes toward the
Hebrew language and Hebrew speakers.
• Higher Hebrew proficiency was expected to
correlate with preferences for Hebrew
speakers.
Participants
21 L1 English speaking children
78 L1 Russian speaking children
• 9 boys, 12 girls
• Mean age – 61 mo
• Mean length of exposure to
Hebrew – 30 mo
• Age of initial exposure to
Hebrew – 26.74 months
• First born - 5
• Average level of parents’
education – post-high
school
• 35 boys, 43 girls
• Mean age – 70 mo
• Mean length of exposure to
Hebrew – 36.85 mo
• Age of initial exposure to
Hebrew – 34.79 months
• First born – 39 participants
• Average level of parents’
education – post-high
school
Methods
Language
Assessment
Social Identity
Assessment
• English: CELF-Preschool 2
(Wiig, Secord & Semel 1992)
• Russian: no standardized
instrument
• Hebrew: Goralnik Language
Screening Test (1995)
Oral interview including:
• Ethnolinguistic labels
• Rating of current and future
ethnic and ethnolinguistic
identities
• Attitudes to languages and
speakers
• Ethnolinguistic social
preferences
Social Identity Assessment
• “How much do you agree? Show me on the Magic Ladder.”
– “I am American/Russian/Israeli/Both”
– “I like to be American/Russian/Israeli/Both”
– “When I grow up I want to be…”
– “At your birthday party, how much do you want to invite
friends who speak only Russian/only Hebrew/both?”
Social Identity Procedures
Magic Ladder
• ☺
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
• 
•
•
•
•
Procedure
10 point, 3D vertical rating
scale, 12”
Numbers hidden from view
Warm-up/practice placing a
magnetic disk on the ladder
in response to questions
about likes/dislikes, feelings
Use of ladder to assess
identity, attitudes, social
preferences
Results:Language
Hebrew Language Proficiency
(Goralnik (1995) Scores)
English-Hebrew Bilinguals:
21% at norm or above
79% below norm
Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals:
62 % at norm or above
38% below norm
60
15
16
12
8
6
Number of Participants
Number of Participants
20
50
48
40
30
30
20
4
10
0
1
0
At Norm
Below Norm
1
At Norm
Below Norm
Length of Exposure (LOE)
English-Hebrew Bilinguals
• LOE did not correlate with
Hebrew language
proficiency. Contrary to
expectations, children with
more exposure to Hebrew
did not have higher
proficiency in Hebrew.
Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals
• LOE did correlate with
Hebrew language
proficiency. As expected,
children with more
exposure to Hebrew had
higher proficiency in
Hebrew.
Least exposure
(10-25 months)
Most exposure
(47-75 months)
Medium exposure (2646 months)
Exposure to the Hebrew Language
Low (n=19)
Mid (n=25)
High (n=11)
0
-0.5
-0.52
-1
-0.94
-1.5
-2
-2.03
-2.5
Mean Z scores of Sum Results
Results: Identity
English-Hebrew Bilinguals
• Hebrew language
proficiency did not correlate
with positive attitudes
toward Hebrew and Hebrew
speakers.
• English-Hebrew bilinguals
preferred Israeli or
bicultural identities
(regardless of LOE or
Hebrew proficiency).
Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals
• "Below Norm" children
presented a consistent
preference for Russian
ethnolinguistic identity in
both present and future.
• “At Norm” children
presented less consistent
but stronger preferences for
Israeli identity, which was
statistically significant for
future oriented identity.
100
90
80
70
Both
Israeli
60
R&I
50
Israeli
Russian
40
30
20
10
0
Below Norm
Below
norm
Norm
AtAtNorm
Who are you?
Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals
LOE and Ethnic Identity: “Who are you?”
Israeli identity correlated with higher proficiency in Hebrew.
Israeli
Both R-I
Russian
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Low (n=19)
Mid (n=25)
High (n=11)
Exposure to the Hebrew Language
English-Hebrew Bilinguals: Ethnolinguistic
Identity
EH bilinguals saw themselves becoming less American
(and more Israeli/bicultural) in the future.
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
I am
I like to be
American
Israeli
When I grow up I want to be
Both
English-Hebrew Bilinguals: Future Identity
Most English-Hebrew bilinguals want to be
Israeli when they grow up.
10 point scale
When I grow up I want
to be…
Future Individual Identity
‘Total Population’
(n=21)
Response
Percentage (Freq.)
American
0.29 (6)
Israeli
0.57 (12)
Both
0.05 (1)
No response
0.10 (2)
Total
21
Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals: Ethnolinguistic Identity
Below norm children preferred Russian identities.
At norm children preferred Israeli and Russian identities.
8.00
8.00
7.00
7.00
6.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
Russian
2.00
Israeli
1.00
Russian
3.00
Israeli
2.00
0.00
How much do you How Much do you When I grow up I
like being
want to be
agree, I am…
1.00
Below Norm Group
0.00
How much do
you agree, I am…
How Much do
you like being
At Norm Group
When I grow up I
want to be
Results: Social Preferences
English-Hebrew bilinguals preferred to invite other English speakers or other
bilinguals to their birthday parties.
Russian-Hebrew bilinguals with lower Hebrew proficiency preferred to invite
Russian speakers; those with higher Hebrew proficiency did not prefer
Russian or Hebrew speakers.
English-Hebrew Bilinguals
Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals
10.00
8.95
9.00
8.48
9
8.00
8
7.00
Only English
6.00
Only Hebrew
6.48
5.86
7
5.76
How much would you
like to invite to your
Birthday party a child
who speaks… Only
Russian
6
5
5.00
4
English Dominant
4.00
How much would you
like to invite to your
Birthday party a child
who speaks… Only
Hebrew
3
Hebrew Domin ant
Both English and
Hebrew
3.00
2
2.00
1
1.00
0
Below Norm
0.00
1
At Norm
1. Hebrew language proficiency interacted with ethnolinguistic identity.
2. Higher Hebrew proficiency lead to preferences of Hebrew dominant friends.
Hebrew language
proficiency
Ethnolinguistic
Identity
Social
Preferences
Hebrew language did not influence ethnolinguistic identity nor social
preferences.
Hebrew language
proficiency
Ethnolinguistic
Identity
Social
Preferences
Length of exposure influenced Hebrew language proficiency,
social preferences, and ethnolinguistic identity.
Exposure to Hebrew
Hebrew
Language
Proficiency
Ethnolinguistic
Identity
Social
Preferences
Length of exposure to Hebrew did not influence Hebrew proficiency,
ethnolinguistic identity, or social preferences.
Exposure to Hebrew
Hebrew
Language
Proficiency
Ethnolinguistic
Identity
Social
Preferences
Conclusions
English-Hebrew Bilinguals
Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals
•
•
•
•
Language
– LOE did not lead to greater
Hebrew proficiency.
Identity
– Children preferred Israeli identity
regardless of Hebrew proficiency.
Social Preferences
– Hebrew proficiency was not
related to social preferences.
Children preferred to socialize
with other English speakers and
with other bilinguals.
•
•
Language
– LOE led to greater Hebrew
proficiency.
Identity
– Hebrew proficiency was related to
identity. Children with higher
proficiency had stronger Israeli
identities.
Social Preferences
– Hebrew proficiency was related to
social preferences. Children with
lower Hebrew proficiency
preferred to socialize with other
Russian speakers. Children with
higher proficiency preferred to
socialize with both Russian
speakers and Hebrew speakers.
Acknowledgement
• The Hebrew-Russian data collection for this paper was supported by the
BMBF funded Consortium “Migration and societal Integration”. Grant No.
01UW0702B.
спасибо