Dr. Mila Schwartz
milasch@bgu.ac.il
Sixth Heritage Language Research Institute
UCLA, June, 2012
Talk outline
 Second generation Russian Jewish immigrants in Israel: A
socio-cultural background and parents’ acculturation
characteristics
Talk outline
 Language Policy in Israel
Talk outline
 Project “'First Language First Approach‘ in early bilingual
education: Towards a better understanding of early
sequential bilingual development “
Talk outline
 Rationalization of the 'First Language First Approach’
 Negotiation between teachers and parents on challenges of
the existing language model
Talk outline
 Assessing the effect of the 'First Language First Approach‘
on children's development in Russian L1 and Hebrew L2 in
lexical knowledge domain
Second generation Russian Jewish immigrants in Israel: A sociocultural background and parents’ acculturation characteristics
Demographic characteristic
 The last wave of Russian Jewish immigration to Israel
was massive and intensive. Over 835,000 immigrants,
arrived between 1989 and 1999.
Second generation Russian Jewish immigrants in Israel: A sociocultural background and parents’ acculturation characteristics
Cultural characteristics
 There is strong tendency to appreciate original culture,
which encourages Russian Jewish immigrants to maintain
their language of origin
 Russian Jewish immigrants have succeeded in building
their own cultural framework based on Russian culture
(mass media, clubs, theaters).
Second generation Russian Jewish immigrants in Israel: A sociocultural background and parents’ acculturation characteristics
Political characteristics

Russian Jewish immigrants have changed the face of
Israeli politics.

Russian Jewish leaders and public figures created their
own political structures at both the national level and
the local level (there are over 500 social and political
organizations).
Second generation Russian Jewish immigrants in Israel: A sociocultural background and parents’ acculturation characteristics
Main acculturation strategy
 Integration, combining the maintenance of the original
culture and the adaptation to the host culture (Horenczyk
& Ben-Shalom, 2006).
Language Policy in Israel
 In Israel, language is a loaded concept, closely linked to
historical, ideological, political, and social issues (Shohamy,
1994; Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999).
Language Policy in Israel
 In recent years, there has been a more liberal policy towards
maintaining immigrants’ languages (Ministry of Education,
2008).
 However, heritage languages are not a part of school curricula.
Project “'First Language First Approach‘ in early bilingual
education: Towards a better understanding of early sequential
bilingual development “
 An organization of Russian immigrant teachers was established
in 1992.
 This organization initiated and currently runs over 25 bilingual
kindergartens and has activities in 90 schools and cultural
institutions throughout the country.
Project “'First Language First Approach‘ in early bilingual
education: Towards a better understanding of early sequential
bilingual development “
Bilingual kindergartens:
 The bilingual kindergartens are private institutions
 They function under the supervision of the Ministry of
Education
Project “'First Language First Approach‘ in early bilingual
education: Towards a better understanding of early sequential
bilingual development “
Aim of the bilingual kindergartens' language
policy:
 To achieve a high level of linguistic competence, in the
heritage language, (Russian) and the majority language of the
host country (Hebrew).
Project “'First Language First Approach‘ in early bilingual
education: Towards a better understanding of early sequential
bilingual development “
 Sequential onset of L2 (Hebrew) begins as the basic linguistic
structures and lexicon in L1 Russian are acquired.
Project “'First Language First Approach‘ in early bilingual
education: Towards a better understanding of early sequential
bilingual development “
Projects focuses:
 Language and cultural policy in the Russian-Hebrew speaking bilingual
kindergartens
 Family language and cultural policy
 Assessing the effect of the 'First Language First' approach on children's
development in Russian L1 and Hebrew L2
 Lexical knowledge development
 Grammar development: Inflectional morphology and morpho-syntax
 Narrative development: Script schema knowledge
 Emergent literacy acquisition
Rationalization of the ‘First Language First Approach‘
 David, the general manager: Our idea of child bilingualism is the following:
Russian as a first language has to be supported in order to maintain the child’s
identity, individuality, roots…The aim of the kindergarten it to support not only the
colloquial Russian which can be learned at home from parents, but to supply
children with a “high”, literate variety of the Russian language. A kindergarten is
supposed to be not only a care-giver but an educational institution.
Rationalization of the ‘First Language First Approach‘
Need of gradual immersion in L2
 Olga, the principal: First of all, we offer a gradual transition from one
language environment to the other. With small children, we communicate
mostly in Russian, so they don’t have stress as they start attending
kindergarten. Here they can express themselves and also have a feeling that
they are understood. We introduce Hebrew gradually. From the age of three on,
the input in Hebrew constantly increases…We apply scaffolding and try to
prevent stress caused by confrontation with the new language for children
“terrified” by Hebrew.
Rationalization of the ‘First Language First Approach‘
Need of gradual immersion in L2
 Olga, the principal: At the beginning, Russian was presented at the
every-day level, without being a subject of teaching…The conviction
that the Russian language is important increased with the time. We
stopped introducing Hebrew as soon as possible. Hebrew exists as the
background until the age of three. The main language to be developed
is Russian. Children just develop the awareness of the coexistence of
two languages...
Rationalization of the ‘First Language First Approach‘:
A source of successful L2 acquisition
 Elena, the principal: Why Hebrew from age three? We
thought that the child needs to advance in the home
language. At age three, narrative ability appears. Language
is established more or less. On the basis of one language as
a foundation I can give the second language and the first
one will continue to develop…
Evidence for transfer of conceptual knowledge
from L1 to L2
 Aviva, Hebrew-speaking kindergarten teacher: The children
are provided with instruction in Russian first, and then I can
teach them more easily. To have a conversation with them when
they are three and I can speak with them like they are five. This
helps me…I taught them something on Sunday, but [the
children] didn’t understand anything. On Monday [the other
teacher] explained it again, but in Russian, with the same
pictures and the same recording/video, and the same dance. On
Tuesday, they already understood me…and made progress with
it… and I continued in Hebrew.
Negotiation between teachers and parents on
challenges of the existing language approach
Faina, David’s mother: We were worried when David (the 
child) was 4 years old. The year was almost over and our son
barely made progress in Hebrew… The principal tried to calm
us down. But I calmed down more due to the other parents
whose eldest kids had finished this preschool before. They told
us that after this preschool their children did very well at
school. We were promised that from 4 to 5 we would observe
the dramatic change and our children would speak Hebrew
fluently. That proved to be true. Now our child knows fancy
words in Hebrew and he feels no problem to speak Hebrew.
Negotiation between teachers and parents on
challenges of the existing language approach
 Recent curriculum changes due to parental concern
 Earlier input of Hebrew from its 'tasting' in the 2-3-year-old
age group during 30 minutes of structural instruction, four
times a week
Early kindergarten bilingual education and
vocabulary acquisition in L1 and L2
Main Questions
 Whether bilingual education with L1 maintenance promotes or
impedes children’s language development in the majority
language (L2)?
 Whether bilingual education is advantageous for minority
language (L1) development?
Theoretical Background
Early kindergarten bilingual education and
vocabulary acquisition in L1 and L2
 Paradis (2007, 2008) proposed a maturation hypothesis, which
assumes that L1 vocabulary may facilitate the conceptuallexical mappings between L1 and L2.
 As a result, older learners who began learning L2 after onset of
L1 acquisition (i.e., sequentially to L1) experienced
accelerated progress in their vocabulary acquisition in
comparison with younger L2 learners who had received the
same exposure time.
Theoretical Background
Early kindergarten bilingual education and
vocabulary acquisition in L1 and L2
 Most focus was on bilingual development in L1 and/or L2
within bilingual school education (for review see Rolstad,
Mahoney, & Glass, 2005).
 Limited research focused on children at ages 3-4 and 4-5,
(Barnett, Yarosz, Thomas, Jung & Blanco, 2007; Winsler, Díaz,
Espinosa, & Rodríguez, 1999).
Theoretical Background
Early preschool bilingual education and vocabulary
acquisition in L1 and L2
 Concerning L2 development, the existing limited research
supports bilingual education at ages 3-4 and 4-5 for minoritylanguage children from immigrant backgrounds and point
towards its efficiency in L2 development in receptive
vocabulary (Barnett et al., 2007; Kan & Kohnert, 2005;
Winsler et al., 1999).
Theoretical Background
Early kindergarten bilingual education and
vocabulary acquisition in L1 and L2
 Concerning development of L1, the results are inconclusive
(Barnett et al., 2007; Kan & Kohnert, 2005; Winsler et al.,
1999; Wong-Fillmore, 1991).
Theoretical Background
Early kindergarten bilingual education and
vocabulary acquisition in L1 and L2

L1 and L2 were examined among children from families
with poor socioeconomic status and low parental education.

Diversity in research design (e.g., usage of parental selfreports without appropriate experimental and control
kindergarten groups, Wong-Fillmore, 1991).
Research Design
 Longitudinal design - two data collection points
 Cross-sectional design - two age groups – 3- 4 and 4-5 ages
 Children’s vocabulary in bilingual kindergartens was compared
with children’s vocabulary in monolingual kindergartens in L1
and L2.
Research Design
 Complex approach to conceptualization and
measurement of the vocabulary as a multi-component
skill by distinguishing between breadth and depth of
vocabulary.
Research Design
 Breadth of vocabulary: How many words we know?
 Depth of vocabulary: How well we know these
words, or the qualitative aspects of word knowledge?
Measures
 Breadth of vocabulary (receptive vocabulary)
 Depth of vocabulary (paradigmatic and syntagmatic
semantic relations)
Measures
Depth of the vocabulary: Paradigmatic knowledge
 Paradigmatic semantic relations are related to the development
of high order cognition skills, such as conceptualization,
categorization, classification and de-contextualization of word
concepts.
Depth of the vocabulary:
Paradigmatic knowledge
Superordinate
Plant
Part-whole relations
Stem, leave
flower
Subordinate
tulip, rose
Measures
Depth of the vocabulary: Paradigmatic knowledge
 Semantic fluency
 Word description
 Categorical identification
Categorical Identification
Measures
Depth of the vocabulary: Syntagmatic knolwedge
 Syntagmatic semantic relations reflect vocabulary richness by
providing descriptive, associative and metaphoric information
about a variety of distinctive object attributes.
 For example: "a watermelon is sweet and tasty and looks like a
ball"
Participants: Age 3-4
 32 children, mean age 37 months
 The sample was divided into two groups:
 15 bilinguals from the bilingual Russian-Hebrew speaking
kindergartens;
 17 bilinguals from the monolingual L2 Hebrew-speaking
kindergartens
Participants: Age 4-5
 35 children, mean age 52 months
 The sample was divided into two groups:
 20 bilinguals from the bilingual Russian-Hebrew speaking
kindergartens;
 15 bilinguals from the monolingual L2 Hebrew-speaking
kindergartens
Participants
 No differences were found between the groups in the
parents' acculturation patterns, parents' education,
competence in Hebrew and Russian, and parent-child
language practice at home.
Results: ages 3-4
Russian as L1
 Significant differences were found in all domains of Russian
vocabulary between the groups.
 The differences were particularly high on paradigmatic
knowledge: lack of progress of the children from the
monolingual kindergartens.
Results: Age 3-4
Russian vocabulary profile (L1) in both kindergarten settings – Time 1 and Time 2
(100-point scale, *p < .05, ** p < .01)
Within effect: 0.009**
Between effect: 0.001**
Interaction: 0.009**
Within effect: 0.000**
Between effect: 0.006**
Interation: ns
Results : ages 3-4
Hebrew as L2
 The children from the BK shown similar to the children from
the MK results on the paradigmatic knowledge.
 Both group of children showed significant progress on the
syntagmatic semantic relations during the educational year.
 The MK group was superior on measure of vocabulary
richness.
Results: Age 3-4
Hebrew vocabulary profile (L1) in both kindergarten settings – Time 1 and Time 2
(100-point scale, *p < .05, ** p < .01)
Within effect: 0.001**
Between effect: ns
Interaction: 0.06
Within effect: 0.000**
Between effect: 0.002**
Interation: ns
Peabody 3-4
within effect: 0.000**
between effect: ns
interation: 0.05*
within effect: 0.000**
between effect: ns
interation: 0.005**
Results: ages 4-5
Russian as L1
Paradigmatic Knowledge
 BK Russian- 20% development
 MK Russian- showed progress of only 5% during
educational year
Syntagmatic Knowledge
 BK Russian – 12% development
 MK Russian – 4% regression (a tendency for regression)
Results: Age 4-5
Russian vocabulary profile (L1) in both preschool settings -Time 1 and Time 2
(100-point scale, *p < .05, ** p < .01)
Within effect: 0.001**
Between effect: 0.001**
Interation: 0.04*
Within effect: ns
Between effect: 0.001**
Interation: 0.01**
Conclusion: ages 4-5
Russian as L1
Paradigmatic Knowledge
 At home this knowledge is not developed.
 It seems that this knowledge develops only in the educational
setting.
Conclusion: ages 4-5
Russian as L1
 Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Knowledge
Linguistic development is more intensive in bi-lingual
kindergartens. In other words, if you are bi-lingual it's
preferable to be in a kindergarten that develops both languages.
Results : ages 4-5
Hebrew as L2
Paradigmatic Knowledge
 BK Hebrew- More accelerated development than MK (20%
vs. 8%)
Syntagmatic Knowledge
 BK group shown 20% of development in the syntagmatic
knowledge versus some regression in the MK group.
Results: Age 4-5
Hebrew vocabulary profile (L1) in both preschool settings – Time 1 and Time 2
(100-point scale, *p < .05, ** p < .01)
Within effect: 0.001**
Between effect: 0.003**
Interation: ns
Within effect: 0.05*
Between effect: 0.03*
Interation: ns
Discussion: First language – Russian
Monolingual education
 Russian-speaking home environment did not serve as a buffer
in particular against delay in paradigmatic knowledge tapping
high order cognition skills development in L1 when children
were early immersed in L2 monolingual kindergarten .
Discussion: First language – Russian
Monolingual education
 The parents efforts in L1 maintenance at home hardly to be
expected to develop into academic knowledge (Snow, Cancino,
De Temple, & Schley, 1991) or into cognitive academic
language proficiency (Cummins, 1979b).
Discussion: Second language – Hebrew
Bilingual education
 Later immersion in L2 and continuing development of L1
within a bilingual educational context, not only does not
impede vocabulary development in the L2, but can even
accelerate the development in L2.
Discussion: Second language – Hebrew
Bilingual education
 The acceleration was found in the development of depth of
vocabulary, paradigmatic and syntagmatic knowledge in L2.
 Concerning paradigmatic knowledge, this progress might be
attributed to conceptual-lexical mappings between L1 and L2.
Discussion: Second language – Hebrew
Bilingual education
 First Language First Approach in bilingual education creates a
solid ground for lexical growth in both L1 and L2.
 Evidence for maturation hypothesis (Paradis, 2007, 2008).
Further research directions
 Evaluation of the prolonged effect of early bilingual education
on language competence, cognitive development, cultural
and national identity, and social adjustment of secondgeneration immigrants from the former Soviet Union.
Further research directions
 Focus on input of grammar in Hebrew (L2) proved by
preschool teacher for early sequential bilinguals in bilingual
versus monolingual kindergartens
Большое спасибо!
!‫תודה רבה‬
Thank you very much!
Dr. Victor Moin
Dr. Janina Kahn-Horwitz
Noya Meital
Miriam Minkov