HOME LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE AMONG RUSSIAN-AMERICAN CHILDREN
Liliya Zhernokleyeva
B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2007
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Multicultural Education)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2011
© 2011
Liliya Zhernokleyeva
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
HOME LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE AMONG RUSSIAN-AMERICAN CHILDREN
A Thesis
by
Liliya Zhernokleyeva
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Lisa William-White, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Peter Baird, Ed.D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Liliya Zhernokleyeva
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Albert Lozano, Ph.D.
Department of Bilingual/Multicultural Education
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
HOME LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE AMONG RUSSIAN-AMERICAN CHILDREN
by
Liliya Zhernokleyeva
Statement of Problem
The pressure of learning English in a very short period of time, often leaves families
in a very difficult place where they have to make a choice between one language and
another. Some students were able to maintain a very “high” level of proficiency in their
heritage language, while others had remained at a very “low” level of language
proficiency. This thesis looks into the factors that influence Russian language
maintenance and loss among Russian-American students. The research focuses on
students’ language use and language attitudes towards their home language in relation to
maintenance or loss of their home language.
Sources of Data
A sample of sixty Russian six graders took the Language Use and Attitude Survey.
Data from the survey was the basis of this study, which compared each student’s attitude
towards the language to the students’ language use and loss.
v
Conclusions Reached
The result of this study showed that, even though students have positive attitudes
towards their heritage language, their use of Russian language outside of the family
setting and in some cases within the family setting is very low. More contexts outside of
the home need to be available to facilitate, require and promote the appreciation and
development of the Russian language.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Lisa William-White, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank, first and foremost, my advisor, Dr. Lisa William-White, for
her guidance and support during the completion of this work.
I am also extremely grateful to Dr. Peter Baird and Dr. Albert Lozano for their
input and interest in this research.
I express my thanks to my friends Albert and Peggie Volkman and Linda
Contreras who helped me edit and proofread this work.
Special thanks to my family, to my Mom, Nadia, my sister, Inessa, and brothers,
Denis, Vadim, and Artem for supporting me in my educational pursuits and for their
continued love and support on every project I choose to start.
Finally, I would like to thank the students and their parents who shared their
experiences with me as well as the school administration for providing conditions
necessary for the survey process to be smooth and authentic.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
Background ............................................................................................................. 1
The Statement of the Problem................................................................................. 6
Definition of Terms................................................................................................. 9
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................... 11
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 12
Organization of the Thesis .................................................................................... 12
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 14
Language Use and Maintenance ........................................................................... 14
Social and Individual Factors................................................................................ 19
Language Shift ...................................................................................................... 26
Parents and Children Talk ..................................................................................... 31
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 34
3. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 35
Research Design.................................................................................................... 35
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 44
Data Collection Instrument ................................................................................... 46
Data Analysis Plan ................................................................................................ 51
4. RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 52
Personal Language Use ......................................................................................... 52
Use of Russian Language with Immediate Family ............................................... 63
Use of the Russian Language with House Guests ................................................ 68
viii
Self Identity........................................................................................................... 70
Language Attitude Score....................................................................................... 71
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 74
5. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS ........................................................................... 79
Implications........................................................................................................... 81
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 85
Appendix A Language Use and Attitudes Survey for 6th graders (11-12 years old
Russian-American students) ............................................................................................. 87
Appendix B “No Risk” Consent Form.............................................................................. 91
Appendix C Assent Form for a Child ............................................................................... 93
Appendix D Human Subjects Form ................................................................................. 94
Reference .......................................................................................................................... 98
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Language Shift ..................................................................................................... 30
Table 2 Students Enrolment by Ethnic Group .................................................................. 36
Table 3 California Standards Test (CST).......................................................................... 39
Table 4 California Standards Test (CST) Subgroup ......................................................... 40
Table 5 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) ........................................................................ 41
Table 6 Parents’ and Students’ Birth Place....................................................................... 43
Table 7 Generational Level of Students............................................................................ 44
Table 8 Language Use with Friends at School ................................................................. 54
Table 9 Language Use with Friends Outside of School ................................................... 55
Table 10 Using Language with Older People Outside the Home and School .................. 56
Table 11 Reading Activities.............................................................................................. 57
Table 12 Watching Television and Cartoons .................................................................... 58
Table 13 Listening to Music ............................................................................................. 59
Table 14 Writing to Relatives ........................................................................................... 60
Table 15 Speaking with a School Teacher ........................................................................ 61
Table 16 Use of Russian Language with Immediate Family ............................................ 64
Table 17 Using Language Within the Home .................................................................... 66
Table 18 Language of Use between Interlocutors ............................................................ 68
Table 19 Using Language with House Guests .................................................................. 69
Table 20 Identifying Self .................................................................................................. 71
x
Table 21 Scoring Language Attitude ................................................................................ 72
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs ............................................................................ 38
xii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
“The United States is a linguistically and culturally diverse nation with
immigrants, refugees, and temporary workers from different parts of the world who are
constantly remaking the fabric of American society. In the process of such geographical
re-locations, language becomes the foremost issue that linguistically different immigrants
have to confront in coming to terms with their new surroundings” (Portes & Rumbaut,
2001).The language of any people is a historical record collected through words. The
cultural and spiritual life of people is reflected in and through language, in its oral and
written forms. As a result, it tells us that the culture of language and culture of a word is
indissoluble communication of many generations. Language is the soul of a nation.
Through language, are demonstrated important elements of a human character, ways of
thinking, originality, spirituality and psychological references. Language is a classified
system of communication that is carried out by means of sounds and symbols. Language
defines who the person is and what linguistic and a social group he/she belongs to.
Language defines the cultural identity, which makes it crucial for a person to know his
language well, and to identify with a group of people of common language.
The transition to another language occurs completely when speakers of one
language are compelled to speak in another language over several generations. The
mixture of code switching from one system of language to another is characteristic of
bilingual communities and separate individuals. According to Fishman, that switch
2
happens away from the minority language under pressure from a dominant group
(Fishman, 1966). Such language mixture is caused, not by a linguistic indispensability,
when an individual cannot pick up the necessary words of native language, but because
of an equivalence of languages (Mironov, n.d.; Taumov, 2011).
The more bilinguals use their two languages in day-to-day living, the more
proficient they become in both languages. Unfortunately, sometimes parents and
teachers do not value their children’s bilingualism and do not provide careful support for
both languages, primarily their native (family) language. From my own observation,
parents are busy trying to develop their own English skills in order to be able to adapt
less painfully to the new environment, forgetting to monitor their children’s first
language. Parents are so concerned about whether or not their children will be fit into the
new environment and learn the new language that they are not thinking about the
possibility of their children forgetting their first culture and language. Fishman describes
the structure of the linguistic shift as a three-generation process. “That is, the first
generation learns as much English as it can but speaks the mother tongue at home; the
second generation may speak the mother tongue at home but shift to unaccented English
at school and in the workplace; by the third generation, English becomes the home
language, and effective knowledge of the parental tongue disappears” (Fishman, 1966, p.
34).
Each language creates the abundance that is life. It is a layer of culture, customs
and traditions, proverbs and fairy tales that gives us the ability to access support and hold
on to the wisdom of our ancestors. A bilingual child receives this abundance in double
3
volume. Each language with its structure and lexicon is the basis for studying subsequent
languages. Research has shown that bilinguals since childhood remember and analyze in
double volume, have more developed memory and capacity to analyze, more discriminate
phonemic hearing, and, with the passage of time, lose less mental ability and at a much
slower rate (Fishman, 1966; Valdes & Figueroa, 1994).
“Persons who use two languages in the course of their everyday lives are not
identical to those who use only one language to carry out all of their communicative
needs” (Valdes, 1996, p. 6). Children who have been born in the United States or came
here at young age are using language shifting when they speak Russian to their parents or
friends. Cindy Kandolf in her article Myth about Bilingualism wrote, “A child who
learns two languages won't feel at home in either of them. She'll always feel caught
between two cultures” (Kandolf, 2009). I partially agree with this statement. A child who
does not know any one language fluently, especially the language that they are using to
communicate with their mothers and fathers will always feel incomplete and caught
between two cultures. It is very important for children to know more than one language
because we live in a multicultural/ multilingual society, but at the end of the day, every
child needs to be able clearly identify what culture he/she belongs to and what language
is his/her native tongue. The knowledge is particularly important as we look at the
experience of Russian immigrants in America.
The Russian Community in America and Our Region
John F Kennedy, in his book “A Nation of Immigrants,” said, "Perhaps our
brightest hope for the future lies in the lessons of the past. Each new wave of immigration
4
has been faced with problems when it reached America. Somehow the difficult
adjustments are made and people get down to the tasks of earning a living, raising a
family, living with their neighbors and, in the process, building a nation” (Kennedy,
1959, p. 12). These words of the president can be addressed to all four massive waves of
Russian immigration to the United States. Each wave brought great hope for a better
future and willingness to work and make a better life. The first wave arrived before 1917
and consisted mainly of peasants. The second wave started to arrive right after the civil
war in Russia, which took place in 1917 - 1923; the third wave started to arrive from
Russia and the former Soviet Union states shortly after completion of World War II. The
fourth wave began arriving after the Soviet Union collapsed and continues with small
waves to this date. Each of the waves brought its own contributions to the United States’
economic and cultural progress (Kasatkina, 2009; Taumov, 2011).
Two thirds of the fourth wave from the USSR (the Union of the Soviet Socialist
Republic) came to California. Even though Russian was the state language of the former
Soviet Union, more than 160 ethnic groups were represented in the USSR. In 1990, two
hundred and ninety million people were living in the Fifteen Soviet Republics. Each
country had its own cultural and historical heritage, language, and traditions: Latvia,
Lithuania, Estonia, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan (Kitanoff Group,
2006).
Sacramento County has by far the highest concentration of former Soviet refugees
in California; one of the youngest refugee communities – first arrivals in early 1990’s.
5
There are between 150,000 and 230,000 first generation immigrants from the former
Soviet Union in the Sacramento area (including Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer, Sutter
and Yolo counties); that corresponds to about 8.5% of the area’s population. The majority
of the Slavic Community is located in West Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, Antelope and
Citrus Heights. Communities are organized around about 73 churches, mostly Baptist and
Pentecostal. The immigration from earlier waves is primarily Russian Orthodox. There is
a 99.9% literacy rate among Russian adults, and virtually all have high school or
vocational education; however, not many adults have a college degree. Culturally, very
high value is placed on education; the former Soviet Union had a very well developed
system of education (Kitanoff Group, 2006).
In past years, the Slavic community has experienced a very rapid growth of small
business ownerships (automotive, childcare, grocery stores, medical and dental clinics,
construction and real estate). An unofficial estimate of Slavic-owned or operated
businesses is 1,500, with an emerging tendency towards growing Civic and Political
power. Slavic American Democracy in Action (SLADA) is the first organization to serve
as a vital connection with government representatives showing interest in working with
the Slavic community. Slavic media consists of more than 15 newspapers and magazines,
five radio stations, TV stations and several websites. The Russian Yellow Pages Book is
the largest of its kind and published annually (Kitanoff Group, 2006).
According to the Kasatkina study, it is no secret immigration brings a lot of stress
and demands enormous life adjustments. The costs of immigration are enormous,
especially emotional costs, which include identity conflict; acculturation always brings
6
massive stress and language barriers (Barkhuizen, 2006). According to Portes and
Rumbaut, the big price parents pay for coming to another country is seeing their children
refusing to speak the mother tongue (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). This brings growing
distance among generations including cultural divide. Since parents came to the United
States in search of a better life for their children, the gap between generations is very
painful for them. Parents are trying hard to find appropriate schooling for their children,
so that their assimilation into the new society is smoother. Language choice is another
issue that parents have to face. Families have to choose which language to speak within
the family, at school and within community. Immigrant parents are trying to adapt to a
new life by seeking a balance between the demands of the environment in which they live
while maintaining true to their heritage (Sabatier & Berry, 2008). However, very often
parents have to fight hard to prevent the negative challenges from influencing the family
system (Nesteruk, 2007)
The Statement of the Problem
Even though Russian immigration has great impact on the demographics of
America, people who left their homeland seeking a better life for themselves and their
children felt a great impact from having to make the difficult and challenging decision to
become part of another country. Leaving behind much of their identity, and loosing the
sense of belonging to something as defining as culture and language was the trade parents
had to make for giving their children an opportunity to create a better and more secure
life. To some extent, Russian parents had to allow fate to guide their children in their
search for a multicultural identity and the feeling of being complete. Calderon (1998)
7
points out, “This process of acculturation involves painful, sometimes unconscious
decisions, such as what is to be saved or sacrificed from the old, evaluating what one
wants and needs to adapt from the new, and integrating these into a comfortable sense of
self” (p.10).
Language cannot be taught separately from culture because language can not be
separated from culture. It is very important to create a deep understanding of inner self or
self consciousness that will help us to better understand what is happening around us.
Language is the most powerful cultural indicator that identifies us with something big
and gives us sense of belonging. “How do we create an oppositional worldview, a
consciousness, an identity, a standpoint that exists not only as that struggle which also
opposes dehumanization but as that movement which enables creative, expansive self
actualization” (hooks, 2003, p. 15). The only way to understand and respect other
cultures and traditions is to understand and respect one’s own. Similarly, the only way to
understand other people is to understand and love one’s self. The objective of the Russian
population is the progress of our children, confident of a possibility to be brought up with
a traditional spiritual base, clearly knowing who they are and to which cultural group
they belong. If our children do not acquire Russian language fluency, they cannot acquire
and fully participate in their culture, which can lead to separation and misunderstanding
among generations. From my personal experience and observation, I see two extreme
tendencies among the Russian community. On the one hand, there is isolation from all
that is American for the sake of keeping all that is Russian – language, customs,
traditions, patriotic teaching, alive in the lives of children. If the other extreme stands for
8
all that is American, it holds that in either case opportunities to become acculturated,
have finely honed and insightful communication skills in one or more language and
become enriched by awareness and understand of the power of language and a world
beyond one’s immediate environment perhaps is compromised, at the very least. Either
example would seem to sabotage a positive immigration experience. The key is to find a
balance between two languages and cultures, so that major disagreements and
discomforts can be avoided, and a person’s effort to better understand him/herself and
others can be enriched.
As a first generation immigrant from Riga, Latvia, which is located in a Northern
part of Europe and a former Soviet Union country, and as an elementary school teacher, I
see a big need among Russian children to keep their native languages. This is salient
because Russian parents are trying to develop their English language to be able to adapt
more easily and to experience less pain in their new environment. However, while
parents are trying to learn some English themselves, they find children learning language
much quicker and at the demise of their native tongue.
They may even refuse to speak in Russian. As a result, very often children with
Russian-speaking parents do not know how or have not been able to increase fluency in
their Russian language. Having observed the speech of Russians of three generations, I
have come to the conclusion that with each new generation the level of retention of the
native language catastrophically decreases.
If speech is not properly developed in any language, the ability to think collapses
and attempts at self-expression suffer. It leads not only to emotional stress, but also to the
9
loss of ability to have meaningful dialogue with other people. Through a language, a
person develops self-esteem, the confidence in the ability to think; confidence in the
ability to cope with the basic challenges of life, and confidence in one’s right to be
successful and happy; “the feeling of being worthy, deserving, entitled to assert our needs
and wants, achieving our values, and enjoying the fruits of our efforts” (hooks, 2003, p.
xii).
One of the biggest factors on Russian children’s language choice and proficiency
is their everyday surroundings, the dominate language of their community, family, and
employment and school. There is also an absence of study relating to the Russian
population in the Untied States. This makes finding research and data to analyze difficult
and limits support from the outside. This made it necessary to rely on minority groups
other than Russian-American. Additionally, there are aspects that this study might have
benefited from but were not addressed, such as language proficiency. I will be looking
closely at what is causing Russian children to lose their first language and make
preferences towards English language?
Definition of Terms
Bilingual according to Merriam-Webster encyclopedia, relates to a person who is using
or is able to use two languages especially with equal fluency (Merriam-Webster, 2008).
Bicultural defines an individual who is relating to, or including two distinct cultures.
Bilingualism is the ability to speak two languages. However, there are four different
types of bilingualism: natural, spontaneous, elective and circumstantial.
10
Elective bilingualism is a characteristic of individuals who choose to learn a language,
for example in the classroom. Elective bilinguals come from majority language groups
(e.g. English-speaking Americans who learn Spanish or French). They add a secondlanguage without losing their first language.
Circumstantial bilinguals learn another language to survive. Because of their
circumstances (e.g. as immigrants), they need another language to function effectively
(Fishman, 1965, 1966; Valdes & Figueroa, 1994).
Language choice is having to choose between two or more languages that the speaker
wants to use at a moment. “Choice of language is dictated primarily by the milieu in
which the speaker finds himself” (Buda, 1991).
Language shift - “a language shift may be defined as the change from the habitual use of
one language to that of another” (Weinreich, 1953, p. 68).
Multilingual – multilingual can be defined the ability to use several languages especially
with equal fluency (Merriam-Webster, 2008).
Dominant language or primary language refers to the language in which an individual
is most proficient. May not be first language learned. Also known as first language, home
language, L1, mother tongue, or native language (Education, n.d.).
Assimilation or Cultural assimilation is a socio-political response to demographic
multi-ethnicity that supports or promotes the assimilation of ethnic minorities into the
dominant culture. The term assimilation is often used with regard to immigrants and
various ethnic groups who have settled in a new land. New customs and attitudes are
11
acquired through contact and communication (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Rumbaut,
Massey & Bean, 2006).
Separatism is the advocacy of a state of cultural, ethnic, tribal, religious, racial,
governmental or gender separation from the larger group. While it often refers to full
political withdrawing, separatist groups may seek nothing more than greater
sovereignty. Some groups refer to their organizing as independence, selfdetermination, partition or decolonization movements (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001).
Marginalization at the individual level results in an individual's exclusion from
meaningful participation in society (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001).
Significance of the Study
To succeed in today’s multi-national, multi-lingual, and multi-cultural society it is
important to have a wide range of different skills in the multicultural area as well as
awareness of the outside world. Bilingualism and multilingualism are both wonderful
tools that can add to the development of critical thinking within any generation. They
will aid one in acquiring social adaptability, as well as increased interest in the world’s
cultures and the value of learning other languages. Immigrant families and their families
are a great resource for the United States population by making them more aware and
sensitive to the world in which they live.
The goal of my study is to contribute research findings about home language
maintenance and loss among Russian-American families. A study such as this should
bring some understanding about language maintenance among minority language groups
and what causes language to be lost and forgotten by the second or third generations.
12
Limitations
This study will focus on a specific group of people (Russians) and be limited in its
attention to other immigrant cultural groups. The results may prove only beneficial to
Russian-Americans and those committed to their education because it is specific to
Russian families living in the United States. The results also may be helpful to educators
and language advocates who may not be so resourceful with this particular age group, in
relation to time spent living in the United States and age at the time of arrival in this
country. Furthermore, there is an absence of studies on the Russian population in the
United States, which makes finding research and data to analyze difficult. There is not
enough scholarship on this topic. This means that research relies mostly on studies of
minority groups other than Russian- American. There are other aspects that this study
could benefit from but are not touched upon, such as language proficiency. Future studies
can elaborate more on students’ language proficiency-- levels in both their first and
second, or dominant, languages. However, this study will focus mostly on language
preferences and language loss.
Organization of the Thesis
In Chapter 2, through the literature review, I will provide a context for my
research about language maintenance and loss. I will discuss the social and individual
factors that cause language loss and language maintenance. I will examine the role of
family acculturation and what motivates learning the language. I will also look closely
at what causes language shift and language choice and how it affects what language one
speaks, to whom, when, and what does it mean to be Russian and become American?
13
Chapter 3 will contain explanation of the study design, including a description of
the setting, and participants, as well as data collection instruments. I will discuss the steps
that I took to analyze the data to provide lucid information about the language
maintenance and loss among the population of the students involved in the survey.
Chapter 4 will report the results of the study, including the full analysis of the questions
guiding it. Chapter 5 will conclude with a discussion of educational implications of my
findings and what needs to be explored further.
14
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
For the literature review, I will be examining the issues around language
maintenance and loss. I will first discuss language use and maintenance in general and
the patterns that have emerged in the research. Secondly, I will explore talk between
parents and children; what languages they prefer; and how their preferences affect
language maintenance and loss. The third topic will examine what causes language shift
among children, adolescents and young adults. The last topic will focus on the social and
individual factors that cause language maintenance and language loss among children,
adolescents, young adults and their parents.
Language Use and Maintenance
Through the language can be found a respect for oneself and identify oneself with
the history and culture. Language helps to distinguish and appreciate other people’s
features. We develop great respect for people we consider to be exemplary and hope to
connect with them on an emotional level. Language can be seen as a form of built-in
energy for people who speak a language, and as the spiritual consolidation of an ethnic
group as a unique sign that help us to learn about other people. A crucial component of a
single human being is the preservation of a spiritual foundation, the emotional and social
connection with your culture (Kouzmin, 1988). “Language and culture are linked
symbolically. By the effort of long-term association, the two are not only well attuned to
each other, but they stand for each other in the minds of insiders and of outsiders too.”
(Fishman, 1991, p. 22). Language and culture help a human being to understand more
15
about him or herself. Unfortunately, sometimes we take self-respect for granted, but our
lives depend very much on how we do respect ourselves. Our lives go much better when
we respect things that need to be respected.
The native language becomes the most natural form of expression of deeply
intimate feelings and experiences for the person who develops the ability to function with
two or more languages. After staying a long time outside of the elements of the first
language, a person happens to experience so called “Language nostalgia,” which is
internal emotional discomfort. In uncontrollable or extreme situations, it has been known
that bilingual or multilingual individuals happen to return to their native language,
unconsciously seeking emotional protection. “Almost all of the languages of the world
have come to stand for the particular ethnic collectivities that speak them, for the ethnocultures that traditionally utilize them and, where we are dealing with official languages
of nations or regions, for the polities that implement them” (Fishman, 1991, p. 23). Every
language automatically brings some culture that identifies it with the people that speak
that language. It brings the certain way of living and tradition.
By virtue of circumstances, the dominant language, which a person chooses to use
out of circumstance, functionally supersede the mother language acquired by a person
during childhood, and that language becomes favorable. As time proceeds, the second
language functionally becomes the first option and the scope of usage of the native
language can be narrowed, reduced, even come close to disappearing. However, in deeply
intimate instants of life and in extreme situations, a person returns to the native language
quite naturally. Sometimes some important dialogues are fixed to the native language, for
16
example, it is the language used for family dialogue, dialogue with the parents, close
people. In some crucial or maybe even the happiest moments of a person’s life those
moments come to life (Taumov, 2011).
The native language is not only a set of lexemes, a lexical unit in the language,
and grammatical designs for expression of ideas; it is a string connecting the spiritual past
to the present of one’s family, one’s people, and one’s background. “The key point is that
for the language to be maintained, it needs to be passed on and acquired by each
successive generation. Because the language is tied not only to communication with
family but to cultural identity as well, it is often parents who decide to teach their mother
tongue to their children” (Fishman, 1991, p. 24). The youth in most cases does not know
enough of and in some cases at all their native language. Most likely, the language is not
demanded in a family circle, and if language is not appreciated enough in the family it
slowly vanishes. Tragically, with the loss of the native language and its roots, the
personality also dies because those two components are inseparable (Taumov, 2011).
“An immigrant language is more likely to be maintained if it has an assured
position in the minority group’s system of core values. Language is not automatically a
core value for speech communities, and this would explain the difference in the extent of
language maintenance among different groups” (Kouzmin, 1988, p. 52). There are four
possible strategies of acculturation of immigrants, aside of national mentality. They are
tightly connected to the person’s relationship with old (in our case Russian) and new
culture or another (in our case American) environment. The first strategy is assimilation
(the complete refusal of the last or heritage cultural experience, and full orientation on the
17
new culture). The second strategy is separatism, which is conservation of the norms and
values of the heritage culture as more preferential in the relation to a culture of present
living. The third strategy is integration or the desire to combine the home culture and the
new culture in order to benefit from them both; and last is marginalization, which is the
refusal of both cultures to integrate as way of life. Acculturation and adaptation according
to Berry and others (2002) is a “long-term way in which people rearrange their lives and
settle down into a more-or-less satisfactory existence. It is ‘more-or-less’ because
adaptation can mean going from a very positive to a very negative way of living in the
new cultural setting” (p. 369).
The strategy of integration is more productive and perspective than other
strategies. This helps a person to enjoy a greater family unity and have much smaller
personal losses. It helps to combine two cultures for the benefit of the family, where
reality shows that it is impossible to keep just home culture without the interference of
the dominant culture. Moreover, the experience of two different cultures does not come
from a simple summation but through an individual personal search and initiative to
understand personal worth and respect of others. “Without the awareness that we are
Russians, that we love and cherish our culture, our history and our wonderful language –
our task is meaningless. It is impossible to feel part of the Russian cultural heritage
without a knowledge of the Russian language” (Kouzmin, 1988, p. 55). According to this
example for the second and third waves of Russian immigrants, the Russian language,
ethnicity, and culture are not separated and “Russian language is a necessary element of
Russian identity” (Kouzmin, 1988, p. 55).
18
“The process of acculturation is the first step toward assimilation, as both
immigrant parents and children learn the new language and normative lifestyle” (Portes
& Rumbault, 2001, p. 53). Forgetting and disrespecting heritage language is the first step
in losing culture and identity. Is Russian the language of our everyday communication, or
limited to the Russian community or maybe even only to family? Is it a language of
books we read, movies we watch, or maybe it is the language we think in (Kouzmin,
1988)? Realization of the language of our “everyday communication” gives a strong
feeling of community as a whole, language respect and understanding that it is possible to
have multiple loyalties.
“Adapting and achieving in a new society cannot be attributed to any single
factor; it is the way that individual and contextual forces are joined in a particular time
and place that affects individual outcomes in a manner that is complex but not chaotic.
This joining of forces underlies the place that different immigrant communities take in
the process of segmented assimilation, and hence, their eventual standing in the American
hierarchies of wealth, status, and power” (Portes & Rumbault 1944, p. 268). Immigrant
families have been exposed to American culture through TV shows, music and computers
while still living in their home countries. They came to the United States with
expectations based on Hollywood movies about wealth, beauty and success. People came
with very high expectations which lead to great depression and frustration. However,
some people are highly motivated by that “Hollywood ideal” and work very hard towards
reaching it. In fact, many immigrants have been able to reach those goals of wealth and
status (Kasatkina, 2011; Watson, 2006).
19
One challenging aspect of adaptation among immigrants is that children (since
they acquire language much faster than their parents) can become parents to their parents.
It might sound unrealistic and shocking, but in many cases, it is a reality. Children get so
much ahead of their parents in their English language usage and their ability to adapt to
new situations that most important family decisions are often placed on their shoulders.
Parents become dependent on their children’s choices and knowledge. Unfortunately
also, children quickly understand the benefits of learning the dominant language and
being able to find their ways around easier than their parents, which gives them a way of
escaping and freeing themselves from control of their parents (Portes & Rumbault, 1944).
The intersection of two languages and two cultures can be described as “dialogue
of cultures.” This means that understanding of one’s own culture can be reached only
through knowledge of other culture. Otherwise, it will have incomplete character as there
is no other subject to compare to. Comparison is necessary to fully value one’s own
culture. Only understanding the differences between cultures helps us enrich our
understanding of our own culture (Mironov, n.d.). Through seeing values in other
cultures, a person can start seeing the same values in his/her own.
Social and Individual Factors
It is not mandatory to know two or more languages from birth to be a bilingual.
There are two different ways of becoming bilingual. There is natural or spontaneous
bilingualism. This is when language has been acquired naturally in an every day setting.
This differs from pedagogical bilingualism, which is when language has been studied in a
learning setting. The difference is only in the effort one’s put on learning a language
20
(Taumov, 2011). There are researchers who have shown that bilinguals since childhood
remember and analyze in double volume, have more developed memory and capacity to
analyze; they have more thin phonemic hearing; and they slightly and slowly lose mental
abilities over the years. (Bialystok, 1988; Cromdal, 1999; Fishman, 1965).
All bilinguals in their every day life have a choice about which language they
want to use with their coworkers, family or friends. Fishman (1965) believes that to
understand language choice we need to understand who speaks what language to whom
in multilingual communities. His point is that each immigrant is going to use a different
language in a different setting and context such as with family, friends, during church,
education, or employment. (Fishman, 1965). “An individual makes these language
choices based on (1) a personal understanding of what is appropriate within the domain
and (2) a contextual interpretation of each particular social interaction” (Spolsky, 2009, p.
34). An immigrant that has two languages in his/her every day life always makes a choice
to use an appropriate and more beneficial language for a given circumstance in order to
make the best out of the situation and conversation.
People who can use two languages in their everyday lives are called bilingual or
multilingual if they can use more than two languages. Moreover, bilingualism does not
necessarily indicate knowing the language fully, or having the ability to write, read and
speak. If a person has one of these dimensions, he/she is considered bilingual. “It can be
said that bilingualism is a condition that makes it possible for an individual to function, at
some level, in more than one language” (Valdes & Figueroa, 1994, p. 8). If
communication has meaning and both participants get something out of that conversation,
21
that might involve hand movements and body language, that must be understood as some
level of bilingualism.
Language shift is very similar to language choice. It is different in that an
immigrant of the second generation shifts from his/her native language to the dominant
language and, with time, makes the dominant language the first and priority language.
Language shift happens when a person needs to choose the most convenient
language in order to get meaning across and succeed in every day life. Shifting from the
old language to a new language causes language death. Language, as well as a human
being, is a living organism. It can live, develop and die. “If you are the last speaker of a
language, as a tool of communication, it is already dead. A language is only really alive
as long as there is someone using it for communication. When you are the only one left,
your knowledge of your language is like a repository, or archive your people’s spoken
linguistic past” (Crystal, D., 2000, p.2). Dead language is the language that out grew its
usefulness. We can see examples of this with many Native American languages.
There are two main types of bilingualism, elective and circumstantial. Elective
bilinguals choose to learn another language because of interest or for educational
purposes, such as studying abroad or for a degree in foreign language. On the other hand,
circumstantial bilinguals have to learn language under the social or political
circumstances, sometimes unwillingly. Most of the United States immigrants are
circumstantial bilinguals who have to learn English because it is the main language of the
country in which they live. In order for an immigrant to fit in and be able to function
22
normally in the new environment they need to acquire new language to some level of
competency (Valdes & Figueroa, 1994).
The level of acquired English by immigrants is very much dependant upon the
community they live in, their employment, access and exposure to English language on
the daily bases and other factors of circumstance. In most cases for first generation
immigrants, no matter how much English they use every day, their first language is still
their dominant language; and they use that language in every situation they can.
However, for the second-generation immigrants, it is not always the case. Second
generation immigrants adapt more easily to a second language and make it their dominant
language for everyday conversations and communications, even in their households
(Valdes & Figueroa, 1994, pp. 15-17). Fishman (1965) states, that “by the fourth
generation, immigrants become monolingual in English, the language of the majority
society” (p. 26). By the fourth generation, immigrants lose their first language completely
and English becomes the only language of their communication.
The strength of bilingual, bicultural children is often not recognized as a talent in
the school system. However, the ability to translate from one language to another at a
young age should be seen as a valuable skill and an asset. The individual position of a
language learner disciple in a learning environment is shaped in conditions of active
forms and methods of training in both languages that are based on the priority attitude to
its interests and demands.
23
The world we live in is constructed on social interaction, thus, we cannot be
separated from each other. We cannot survive by living in isolation; we need each other
to interact with and learn from. Moreover, social interaction is fully and completely
dependant upon our cultures, history and customs; we cannot separate a person from what
comes with that person and is history, culture and custom. By socially interacting with
each other, we learn about each other. We learn about different cultures and customs. It
helps us to enrich our own knowledge and way of living (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978).
Shockingly, the school system works against those who are less fortunate and the
system is designed for them to fail. The school system works only for a small group of
people, and it discriminates and alienates the rest of the groups who cannot be called
successful (Bochner & Ellis, 1995). Students who lack the knowledge of the language
that is broadly used in their everyday lives may feel unsafe and threatened. In school
some students may develop the mentality that, because they are bilingual or since English
is not their first language, they are less fortunate. However, according to Portes and
Rumbault (2001), immigrants that possess knowledge of their mother tongue and the
language of the country they are presently living in have a very great chance of
succeeding. “Yet by and large, educated immigrants are in a much better competitive
position and are more likely to succeed occupationally and economically in their new
environment. The same is true of those with extensive occupational experience” (Portes
& Rumbault, 2001, p. 46).
Parents who recently immigrated to a new country often had to make quick
decisions about teaching their students the new language, so their children would not feel
24
lost in the new environment. Sadly, the choice of surviving forces families to put their
home language aside in order to succeed in the new environment. Families need to make
sure that all the necessary needs to survive in everyday situations are met. “It is hard to
talk about higher order needs until basic needs are met. First, safety and belonging needs
have to be met, and only then, when people feel safe and perceive themselves as part of
the community, can they think about language” (Kasatkina, 2009, p. 75). Thus, it is
important to create a safe environment where children and parents can slowly adjust to
the new language and the new situation without worrying too much about basic needs. As
a fact, immigrants often agree to take any job to meet their basic needs and keep their
families protected (Kasatkina, 2009; Nesteruk, 2007). Moreover, usually families do not
get support from schools or government organizations to meet their basic needs. The
psychologist and aids could help families have an easier and less painful adjustment to
new and unfamiliar circumstances. “After safety needs are fulfilled, the next step is to
satisfy social needs dependent upon emotionally based relationships grounded in feelings
of belonging, acceptance, and closeness” (Kasatkina, 2009, p. 76).
Ability to survive in very tough and unexpected situations can offer immigrant
families great skills. Children that are used to getting everything in life from their parents
without questioning where and how those things were earned, are not learning the life
skills of surviving and hard work. “Some of the stories illustrate the peculiar paradox that
greater family economic achievement and security sometimes lead to lower aspirations
among secure and acculturated children, while legal insecurity and a precarious economic
situation spur their ambition, often to the chagrin of penniless parents” (Portes &
25
Rumbault, 2001, p. 18). Children who are coming from tough situations in life are more
often better prepared to face life situations and survive in any given circumstances
(Zentella, 2006).
Linguistically and culturally diverse students face issues from a lack of role
models or lack of someone who understands how to meet their every day learning needs.
Bilingual teachers and educators can help to address these issues and role model the way
students can become successful. Unfortunately, there is a lack of skilled personal capable
of providing programs and support necessary to help those students gain important skills
needed for a meaningful and useful education. In order for students to get a meaningful
lesson that they can use in their every day lives, they need someone from their own
community and with the same background or the same language to become that role
model for them. “The process of ‘growing up American’ ranges from smooth acceptance
of a traumatic confrontation depending on the characteristics that immigrants and their
children bring along and the social context that receives them” (Portes & Rumbault,
2001, p. 19).
Language cannot be seen as something that is removed from other cultural
systems; rather, it should be considered as a part of the functionally related whole person.
Language serves as registration and expression of an idea. Any language that is capable
of doing that must be considered and counted. If the word of a language allocates and
makes out the concept, thus we can understand, if it has been established, it is a separate
language that has its own structure and cannot be seen as slang or dialect.
26
Since humanity has realized an effective force of a word, whether it is an
authority, profit or a possibility to keep mind presence, it always resisted to a possibility
objectively estimate the value of a language. As a fact, we need to keep our heritage
language not only to be able to communicate to other generations, but to be connected to
our past and culture. Language is the only component that keeps us connected to the past
and gives as a sense of belonging. Once a person looses this connection, he loses himself.
Moreover, the person is left alone to wonder who he is, what group he belongs to, and
what identifies him with that group. People who never have experienced this transition
will never understand how crucial this issue is. Sadly, a person who loses connection with
his/her heritage will lose him/herself and will never feel complete and at certain peace
and belonging (Kasatkina, 2009; Mironov, n.d.; Nesteruk, 2007). All his/her life he/she
will search for that completion.
Language Shift
The United States is a linguistically and culturally diverse country. Immigrants,
refugees and foreign workers who bring their own identity, culture and language to the
society, created the American society. The only way all these different cultures,
nationalities and languages can be connected and work together is through language. A
language becomes the issue that all of these people have to tackle in order to be
successful in new surroundings (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001).
In cases when a group that uses L1 (native language) have an opportunity or a
need to use L2 (a second language), raises a number of possibilities for people to practice
their second language skills. First, language L1 can be replaced by L2; in other words, the
27
language shift occurs. Secondly, L1 and L2 can be used alternately, depending on the
requirements of the conditions; in other words, language switching from L1 to L2 takes
place. Thirdly, there can be merging - assimilation both languages L1 and L2 in the
uniform language system (Casta & Santesteban, 2004). “One of the most remarkable
abilities of bilingual speakers is that of separating their two languages during the
production of speech. Although the speech of highly proficient bilinguals in their second
language (L2) often carries traces of the first language (L1), it rarely exhibits L1 lexical
intrusions” (Casta & Santesteban, 2004, p. 491). A speaker’s proficiency level in both
languages will affect the language switching performance. “L2 proficiency seems to be
one of the most relevant factors for predicting bilingual speech performance. That is,
highly proficient bilinguals suffer fewer L1 intrusions than low-proficient bilinguals
when speaking in their L2” (Casta & Santesteban, 2004, p. 494). The difference between
highly performing bilinguals and low performing bilinguals comes not from better
processing, but from different processing information (Casta & Santesteban, 2004).
The idea of close communication between language and society has been around
for a very long time. Language is a public phenomenon. Humans use language as the way
of communicating with other humans in the same territory. “There is no language without
a language community. … Some languages become stronger; other languages tend to
decline, even die” (Baker, 1996, p. 35). Every language is important if there are people
that use that language to communicate. However, not every language is characterized as a
public phenomenon. To characterize language as a public phenomenon means one could
find distinctive features that make it clearly accessible to the public. “Bilingual
28
individuals do not exist as separate islands. Rather, people who speak two or more
languages usually exist in groups, in communities and sometimes in regions” (Baker,
1996, p. 35).
The possibilities of language are boundless. Moreover, common language
supports unity of society. People who speak the same language and share the same
culture typically look for support and understanding from a person with the same
background (Kasatkina, 2009; Nesteruk, 2007). As a fact, language is the system of signs
and pronunciation rules that are general for all members of the given society. Speech is
the display and functioning within a language, a process of dialogue; it is individual for
each native speaker. Despite the many fears and contradictions “to master and use
American English, language is the least robust element of the generational legacies to
survive in the process of adaptation to the United States” (Nesteruk, 2007, p. 30). In
addition, when a person has to unwillingly shift from one language to another in order to
survive, he/she is in danger of losing full identity and the sense of belongings to a certain
group. “Language shift generally and basically involves culture change as well indeed,
initially, quite devastating and profound culture change. All the more so in cases where
the ethno-cultural collectivity does not also represent a distinctive religious tradition
dissimilar from and discontinuous with those religious traditions surrounding it and
where the vernacular traditionally and historically associated with this tradition is,
therefore, not also sanctified” (Fishman, 1991, p. 16.). The lack of strong sense of the
culture, belonging and knowing one’s heritage and roots may end up in the very lost
place within the ‘melting pot’ of American society.
29
Language of any people is a historical memory shown through words. Cultural
and spiritual life of people is reflected through and in language, in its oral and written
forms. As a result, it tells us that the culture of language and culture of a word is
indissoluble communication of many and many generations. Language is the soul of a
nation. Through language important elements of human character, ways of thinking,
originality, spirituality and psychology are demonstrated. Language can be defined as the
system of communication which is carried out by means of sounds and symbols.
Language defines who the person is and what linguistic and a social group he/she belongs
to. Language defines the cultural identity of a person, which makes it crucial for a person
to know his language and to identify with a group of people.
Through all the studies we can see that language loss is more common among
immigrant children than language maintenance. “Language loss is usually presented as
the reverse side of language shift: that is, change from habitual use of one’s minority
language to that of a more dominant language under pressure of assimilation from the
dominant group” (Fishman, 1966; Hornberger, 2002; Zhang, 2004). The constant urge of
being accepted and fitting in makes children give preferences towards the language that is
more appropriate for the given situation and more acceptable therefore giving them the
feeling of equality and belonging. The urge of finding one’s place in society, the constant
shifting from one language to another has shown us that, in order to survive, by “the
fourth generation, immigrants become monolingual in English, the language of the
majority society” (Fishman, 1965); and the mother tongue disappears and becomes the
foreign language.
30
According to Nesteruk (2007) and Kasatkina (2009), language shift occurs in all
three generations. The first generation uses English very limited only when it is
absolutely necessary and needed as a tool to get the point across and be understood. The
second generation uses English in broader ways. They speak English in school, with their
friends, and in most cases, at home with their parents and siblings. However, the third
generation loses the first language due to the lack of support from the second generation
and use English as the dominant language. By the fourth generation, the mother language
becomes completely strange and people lose all their connections and attachments to that
language and unfortunately its culture (Fishman, 1966).
Kasatkina’s (2009) researched language shift among the Russian people from the
former Soviet Union. The data had been collected from three generations, from IPUMS
files of 1990, 2000, and 2005-2007.
Table 1
Language Shift
Head of
House
Hold
Spouse Child Parent Grandchild
Year of data
Language Spoken
collection
Russian
1990
68.217
2000
111.8
43.9
32.9
4.534
480
76.157 52.75
5.756
1.232
31
2005/2007
128.744
83.575 52.82
Ukranian/Ruthenian/
1990
17.937
9.549
1.67
Little Russian
2000
506
538
416
2005/2007
846
608
97
9.634
594
1.201
0
0
103
82
The above data shows that half of the second generation prefers using English in
most situations of their day-to-day lives. We can see a clear preference towards English
language, and, in most cases, they stop speaking their heritage language. The third
generation either stopped speaking the heritage language completely or as we see in
Table 1, Ukranian/Ruthenian/Little Russian languages among the year tremendously
decreased. Perceptibly, these statistics give us a clear picture of language shift among
immigrants, and in some cases, even language death or loss. “Language choice and
language acquisition are inevitable dilemmas of the adaptation process that immigrant
families face in new cultures. These families are required to engage in new social patterns
of behavior; to either speak unfamiliar tongues or at least be willing to live in the
presence of unfamiliar tongues; and to reassess their priorities in relation to education,
career, spirituality, and political leanings” (Kasatkina, 2009, p. 56).
Parents and Children Talk
It is very important for parents to have the right attitude about their heritage
language when they talk to their children and stress the fact that one’s heritage language
and culture are very crucial within a child’s total development. “In childhood we are told
32
that our language is wrong. Repeated attacks on our native tongue diminish our sense of
self. The attacks continue throughout our lives” (Anzaldua, 1988, p. 58). If children from
a very early age, hear only negative comments about their native (home) language of
course they will develop some discomfort or negative attitudes towards it. (Zentella,
2006). A positive attitude about one’s heritage is especially crucial in teenage years, since
it is a very emotional, confusing and searching age. The more certain and clear the
question of heritage is for a teenager, the easier adaptation to a new culture and language
will be. It is important for a person to be able to identify with a language group because
how one sees his/her own language and culture shapes how he/she is seen by others
(Fishman, 1965, 1966, 1991, 2006). If a person is not sure about him/herself, or is
embarrassed about one’s tongue, culture and roots, these factors shape how others will
see him/her (Kopeliovich, 2009; Sabatier & Berry, 2008; Spolsky, 2009). At some point
of our lives, we all can be embarrassed by some aspect of our culture but on a deeper
level.
According to Fishman (1965), the best way to understand the pattern of language
choice is through the understanding “who speaks what language to whom and in which
settings, specifically in communities that are characterized by multilingualism” (p. 244).
His argument is that domains of behavior as to when certain speech forms are used
include contexts such as family, friends, religious practice, educational settings,
employment or government involvement; and an immigrant is likely to use a different
language in different domains (Fishman 1965). “An individual makes these language
choices based on (1) a personal understanding of what is appropriate within the domain
33
and (2) a contextual interpretation of each particular social interaction” (Spolsky, 2009, p.
35). Fishman (1991) describes language choice as casual use of language that is more
indicative of language shift than of language maintenance. The younger generations
chose to speak their heritage language to those that are older (their parents, grandparents
and other members of these older generations) than they do to those who are of their own
or a younger generation. Children as well as many adults have tendency to mix two
languages together when they speak to people that understand both languages (Fishman,
1991).
Some people are able to arrange their speech at a level of understanding of the
interlocutor, when others would not do discounts to change their language to a level for
others to understand. Some are tolerant of pronunciation and grammatical mistakes,
others laugh at them. That is why it is easier for a child to master the second language, a
child is not as worried about other people’s opinions, as is an adult who is constrained by
the lack of proficiency in a second language. An adult is afraid to make mistakes for fear
of not being able to find the necessary word on time and be humiliated. With kids, it is
acceptable to speak slowly, emotionally, in short, simple phrases and with repetition.
Nobody expects ideal pronunciation from a child; incorrect use of words is acceptable.
However, adults are expected to speak fluently and grammatically correct. Adults keep
their first language as their main language through their entire life; it serves them as an
escape place of familiarity, when for most children their second language becomes their
first. According to Fishman (1991):
34
In most cases, most adults commonly speak their ethnic mother tongues to
each other, even though most of them are bilingual and could well speak
English to each other about most aspects of their daily lives. Adult
community life is still primarily non-English in connection with interactions
with neighbors. Most neighborhood shopping, participation in communitysponsored activities and associations with recreational, charitable, mutual
assistance and popular cultural agendas (Fishman, 1991, p. 198).
Minority groups, particularly first generation immigrants, try to preserve their
language in their community, and refuse to shift to another language and use it only when
it is absolutely necessary (Fishman, 1991; Zentella, 2006). The possibility of using their
first language gives them sense of shelter and protection.
Conclusion
Looking back at the studies reviewed in this chapter, it is evident that many
different features are at play in the maintenance or loss of language. The socio-cultural
factors are many that define what language is more likely be spoken in a given society.
Based on a given circumstance, heritage language usually gets pushed away and
forgotten for survival purposes. However, after a person has acquired all the necessary
tools to survive and feel comfortable in new circumstances, he or she attempts to reclaim
one and identify with the cultural group they belong to. Family strong ties and parents’
strong will to pass on their heritage will determine if a person will keep and continue to
use his/her heritage language in the future.
35
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, I describe the participants and settings where the research took
place. I also describe methods that I used in this study for data collection, the study
design and the methods for data analysis. The research questions about language loss and
maintenance guided the creation of the survey questions that students completed (see
Appendix A). Students were also asked to answer questions about their daily activities
outside of class and home, including what language they prefer in each of those
situations. Furthermore, they were also asked to give opinions about their attitudes
towards their heritage language, as it reflects their self-identity. Finally, they were asked
about school programs they attend and help them to keep their heritage language alive.
Research Design
Setting
This study takes place in the Future Academy. Future Academy is a Learning
Community charter school, which was created in 2003. It is a fairly new elementary
school in Northern California. The school’s mission is to provide quality education to all
families. This school has the largest Slavic enrolment in town. Nine hundred forty-one
students were enrolled in this school for the 2010-2011 year. The majority (612) of the
students were born in the United States, but have at least one parent who was born
outside of the United States. The next largest group was born outside of the United States
in Ukraine – 177 students. Sixty-two students were born in Russian and forty-two in
Moldova. Twenty-seven students came from Belarus and eleven from Uzbekistan; four
36
from Latvia and Kazakhstan; and two from Kyrgyzstan. All these countries are former
Soviet Union countries and the main language used for communication is Russian.
The school provides after school programs for students who want to enhance their
school day. It is not mandatory, but students have a choice of several activities:
basketball, soccer, wrestling, acrobatics, karate, dance, drama, gardening, vocal/choir,
violin, art, Lego, digital photo, chess, Russian, home economics, English, math and
computers. All of these are after-school choices for students to work on their skills.
Russian is also taught for two hours every week as an obligatory subject. (To see students
enrollment by ethnic group look at Table 2).
Table 2
Students Enrolment by Ethnic Group
Ethnic Group
Percentage
African American
American Indian
0.10%
-
Asian
Filipino
0.50%
-
Hispanic/Latino
0.10%
Pacific Islander
-
White
98.70%
Two or More
0.20%
None Reported
0.40%
37
Learning Community Charters and the Future Academy have the goal of
affirming students’ heritage. They strive to ensure that heritage is recognized and
appreciated in the country in which they presently live. They make it possible to use
students’ heritage to enhance and enrich students’ everyday learning and to develop an
appreciation for their roots. Future Academy provides multicultural education where
students’ first language and cultural literature are included. In their teaching, they use a
supportive and safe learning environment developed to deliver a student’s culture and
language through a comprehensive and comprehensible approach.
The main goal of Future Academy is to prepare students for college. They aim to
ensure that every child has equal opportunity to gain the necessary skills to apply and
succeed in any California University, and to have a broader choice of universities to
attend throughout the country. To make sure that every child’s needs are met, the school
hires highly qualified teachers and provides a broad choice of classes and after school
programs. The school tries to make sure that students’ individual needs are addressed and
that every child gets careful support from the staff, to make sure that they are doing their
best to succeed. If needed, the school provides counselors and a parent liaison to deal
with personal and family problems. The school also tries to make learning less stressful
and safer, and to help with learning achievement problems, peer pressure situations, and
trouble that derives from decision-making. The Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs clearly
shows that when the things that satisfy our lower order needs are swept away, we are no
longer worried about the maintenance of our higher order needs. Maslow states that we
38
must satisfy each need in turn, starting with the first, which deals with the most obvious
need for survival itself.
Figure 1 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Parent involvement plays an important part of Future Academy. The school tries
to ensure that school and home are connected, and that parents play an important part in
their children’s lives in school. Parents have been provided with special tutoring that
includes after school workshops where they learn how to participate in teacher-parent
39
conferences and in all other activities that require parental involvement. A parent liaison
is also available to parents to help them better understand and support their children.
Future Academy does an excellent job of preparing students for the California
Standards Test (CST) as a part of STAR testing. Students’ scores are recorded by
performance level: advanced (exceeding state standards), proficient (meeting state
standards), basic (approaching state standards), below basic (below state standards) and
far below basic (well below state standards). Table 3 shows the combined percentage of
students scoring at the Proficient and Advanced levels in English/Language Arts, Math,
Science and History/Social Studies over a three- year period. Table 4 shows the
combined percentage of students scoring at the Proficient and Advanced levels in
English/Language Arts, Math, Science and History/Social Studies by subgroup.
Table 3
California Standards Test (CST)
Subject
School
District
2008 2009 2010
State
2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010
English/Language
Arts
38
46
47
44
38
39
46
50
52
Mathematics
54
59
55
49
35
40
43
46
48
Science
35
37
51
43
34
39
46
50
54
28
56
41
25
27
36
41
44
History/Social
Science
-
40
We can see tremendous growth in student achievement in all subject areas over the threeyear period. The school puts great effort and pride in student achievement which gives a
great result.
Table 4
California Standards Test (CST) Subgroup
English/Language
Subject
Arts
History/Social
Mathematics Science Science
District
39
40
39
27
School
47
55
51
56
African American
-
-
-
-
American Indian
-
-
-
-
Asian
-
-
-
-
Filipino
-
-
-
-
Hispanic/Latino
-
-
-
-
Pacific Islander
-
-
-
-
White
48
55
50
55
Males
42
52
54
47
Females
54
59
46
69
disadvantaged
29
35
19 -
English Learners
23
40
22
Socio-economically
18
41
Students with
Disabilities
6
Migrant Education
-
-
12 -
-
-
-
-
scores are not disclosed when there are fewer than 10 students
According to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act enacted in January 2002,
every school must show Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward achieving the standards
for Mathematics and English/Language Arts. As such, all the schools in the USA are
required to meet requirements in the following areas: participation rate, proficiency rate,
and a target API and graduation rate (for secondary schools). There are consequences for
schools that do not meet AYP. These can include replacing staff, additional tutoring
programs, or students being given the choice of moving to another school within the
district. To see results of school and district performance in meeting AYP, see Table 5.
Table 5
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
School
District
overall
No
No
Met AYP
English-
English-Language
Criteria
Language Arts
Mathematics Arts
Mathematics
Yes
Yes
Yes
Made AYP
Participation
Rate
Yes
42
Percent
Proficient
No
No
No
No
API School
Results
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Graduation
Rate
We can see in table 5 that the school met all the necessary requirements for AYP and is
performing at the very high level of student achievement.
Data was taken from the Future Academy and Lakes Unified School District
websites and can be checked with Dataquest the search tool provided by the California
Department of Education (CDE).
Participants
The sixty participants of this study are six grade students, ages 11-12 and all
students of Future Academy. There was no criteria for exclusion or inclusion; however,
all students from all four six grades were asked to participate in research. The reason I
chose six graders was because it is the age when they are still spending quality time with
their families, but at the same time they get exposed to the English language which can
give me better data of their language preferences. Every student had a choice whether to
participate or not, and there were no consequences for not participating in the study.
Every student who participated in the survey comes from a Slavic household, where
Russian is the first language of the family and also the language mainly used in the
43
household. Thirty boys and thirty girls participated in this study. Fifteen students were
born in Ukraine. Thirty-one mothers and thirty fathers were also born in Ukraine. Thirty
students out of sixty were born in California, and only one father was born in California.
Three students were born in Belarus along with six mothers and six fathers. Five students
were born in Russia as well as thirteen mothers and fourteen fathers. Four students from
the research were born in Moldova, together with six mothers and four fathers. Two
students, two mothers and four fathers were born in Uzbekistan. Only one mother was
born in Bulgaria, and one student was born in Kazakhstan. To get a better picture of the
parents and students birthplace, see Table 6.
Table 6
Parents’ and Students’ Birth Place
Birth Place
Ukraine
Mother
Father
Student
31
30
15
USA
0
1
30
Estonia
1
0
0
Belarus
6
6
0
Russia
13
14
5
Moldova
6
4
4
Uzbekistan
2
4
2
Bulgaria
2
0
0
Kazakhstan
0
0
1
44
In order to identify the generation number of students, I used the same
measurement system as Rumbaut, Massey, and Bean (2006) and Spizarsky Brown (2009)
used in their research. Generation 1.5 in Table 7 shows that both participants and their
parents were born abroad and immigrated to the United States. Thirty out of sixty
students (50% of the participants), were born outside of the United States. Another thirty
participants (50%) are second generation, meaning a family in which one or both parents
were born outside of the United States, but the child was born in the United States.
Thirteen boys and sixteen girls for the research were born in the United States. No one
from the participants’ families belongs to generation three, which identifies with the
family where both parents and children were born in the United States. To get a better
understanding of generational level of students, see Table 7.
Table 7
Generational Level of Students
Generation
Number of Students (n=60)
Gender (b-30, g-30)
1.5
30 b-17, g-14
2
30 b-13, g-16
3
0
0
Data Collection
The main source of the data for this research was a “Language Use and Attitude
Survey.” The reason I chose a survey for my research was because it is the most
45
sufficient and non-intrusive or threatening way of getting the information according to
the University Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects. According to Stake
(2010), “The advantages are that surveys can draw from a large number of respondents”
(Stake, 2010, p. 99). The data is turned into totals, medians, percents, comparisons and
correlations (Stake, 2010). The students were relaxed during the survey and were at their
most natural behavior. To avoid any conflict of interest and to protect students’ right to
privacy, the survey was conducted confidentially and questions did not ask for any
personal information. Before the survey had been distributed, several native-speaking
adults were asked to take the survey. Those adults were friends of mine and parents who
have children of similar age. Their reading and survey participation gave me a broader
perspective about whether or not the survey was sufficient and appropriate for that
particular age. The reason adults took the survey, was because they wanted to see if it is
appropriate for children and if there were any problems or questions. The survey was
adapted from previous research conducted by Jerrica Spizarsky Brown (2009) on
“Language Maintenance in Heritage Language Speakers.” Most of the questions have
been adapted from that survey about language maintenance, including what family
situations and every-day routines help to maintain the first language as well as some
questions to find out what factors cause the home language to be lost. In Chapter 2, I
discussed students’ self-identification and connection with their heritage, culture and
traditions. Thus, the questions touched on students’ lives outside of school and in
everyday situations, and what language they preferred in each of those situations.
46
Since all of the students were exposed to the United States school system for
sometime, the survey was conducted in English. However, letters had been sent home for
parents’ to sign as to whether or not they agreed to let their children participate in the
research. The letters were translated into Russian and sent to parents in both Russian and
English languages.
At the end of the sixth grade, all of the students take the Russian Language
Proficiency Test. Through this test, students can find out their writing proficiency in the
Russian language. This test has thirty-four questions that allowed me to check students’
understanding and proficiency in Russian grammar. This test also checks students’
understanding of verbs, adjectives, adverbs and nouns. The test contains a set of
vocabulary words that students need to be able to identify. The last part of the test checks
the students’ ability to comprehend text. Students had been given a story to read, as well
as a set of questions related to how well they understood the meaning of the text. All
students of the Future Academy are required to take this test, even if their first language
is not Russian. Moreover, all the students of the Academy, no matter what their first
language is, are required to take the Russian course which is taught twice a week.
However, during the remainder of the time, learning and teaching happens in English and
material is covered based on both California and National Standards.
Data Collection Instrument
All data was collected from students about their language choices and attitudes
towards their first language. There were five answers that students could chose from: 1)
always Russian, 2) more Russian than English, 3) as much Russian as English, 4) more
47
English than Russian or 5) always English. Each answer was given a number between
five for “always Russian” to one for “always English.” The answers were scored with
forty the highest score that could be obtained by a student, which would give the
researcher an understanding as to how students interacted in activities that include the
Russian language only. The scoring system was borrowed from Jerrica Spizarsky Brown
(2009) and McGraw Hill Glencoe (n.d.). The first six questions were asked to find out
what language students preferred to use when they speak to their friends in school or
outside of school; and what language is used with people outside of their household or
with older people outside of their school. These questions were asked to find out if there
had been any patterns between students and their choices.
Another four questions were asked to find students’ language (Russian or
English) preferences, when they choose to read a book or magazine for pleasure, when
they watch TV or cartoons; and when they listen to music. Those questions were
designed to find patterns between language choices, and whether or not there are any
patterns based on gender. Those questions were designed to find out what makes students
decide to lean more towards one language over another. In the next question, I wanted to
find what language students speak when interacting with their schoolteachers, and if that
choice affects a student’s attitude and choices in everyday situations. The same grading
criteria was used for these sets of questions as were used for the previous ones.
Another very important question was asked to find out if any other language is
used in the child’s household. That question is the most important question because it
explores students’ access to both languages, especially to their first language. Family is a
48
first resource for maintenance of the heritage language and culture for the children. The
family’s choice of household language is a crucial decision for the second generation. It
means the difference between a child’s knowing the heritage language and culture. The
overwhelming majority of children acquire their first language from their parents and
grandparents. As a result, the loss of the first language can cause a loss of the culture and
connection among generations.
Another fourteen questions were asked to identify language choices among people
in the students’ household. Children were asked to choose the best answer for the
language choices that their parents’ make, including when they talk to each other; and,
when they talk to their children. Children were also asked to answer questions about
which language they use when they talk to their parents. They were asked if there has
been a difference in their language choices when they talk to a father and when they talk
to a mother. Students were also asked to answer what language they use when they talk to
their siblings, including what language their brothers and sisters use when they talk to
them. Another set of questions was used to find out if there are other people living in the
household (such as grandparents or uncles and aunts, or cousins), and if there are other
people in the household, what language is used. It was important to find out what
language the father uses to talk to them and what language a mother uses to talk to them
to see the patterns. Another question was used to find out what language students use to
talk to other people in the household, and what language is used by other people in the
household to talk back to the student. All these questions provide a picture the helps to
understand the household dynamics, and to get a sense of the climate and cultural choices
49
of the family. Students had three responses to choose from: “always in Russian”;
“sometimes in Russian and sometimes in English”; and “always in English.” Each answer
was given a score (3, 2 and 1) and then a final score was totaled for each student. If all
responses were answered as “always Russian,” students would get a score of twenty-one,
which is equal to 100%. The scoring system was borrowed from Jerrica Spizarsky Brown
(2009) and McGraw Hill Glencoe (n.d.).
Another set of questions was used to find out if a student was born in the United
States or outside of the United States. This information was analyzed to find out if there
is a pattern between students who were born in the United States that differs from the
patterns used by those who were born outside of the United States. This information will
be very important for identifying if birthplace affects students’ language choice, or
whether it is more dependent on the age the student immigrated to the United States and
entered the United States school system.
Another two questions were asked about students’ parents’ birthplace. This
sequence will give another perspective about where the students come from and what
language they prefer. It will provide a bigger and a broader picture of understanding
family backgrounds and surroundings. The last question in this set was designed to find
out with what language students identify themselves. It gives a better understanding of
how students see themselves in relation to culture and language. From this information,
we can sense why students make Russian or English choices in their everyday situations
including what their attitude is towards one language or another. These sets of questions
were not scored.
50
The last set consisted of thirteen questions all about finding out students’ attitudes
toward the Russian language. Knowing students’ attitudes towards the language will give
a clearer picture of why they prefer one language over another, including what makes
them make this preference. Some of the questions were designed to show whether or not
there exists a positive attitude towards the Russian language, and some of the questions
were designed to show whether or not there is a positive attitude students display towards
the English language. Participants received one point for a positive attitude towards
Russian and zero points for a negative attitude towards Russian language. A negative
attitude towards Russian would show that students have a positive attitude towards
English. Students were able to earn a total of thirteen points, if all of their responses were
positive towards the target language. The scoring system was borrowed from Jerrica
Spizarsky Brown (2009) and McGraw Hill Glencoe (n.d.).
In those questions, I asked students to tell me how they feel about the Russian
language by using a Likert scale, from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. I wanted
to find out if they would recommend that others learn the Russian language as their
second language; or whether they see the language as irrelevant in the English speaking
country. I wanted to find out if they think that we should use more of the Russian
language in our every day lives or if they think that learning English is more important
than learning or maintaining Russian. Do they find Russian irrelevant because they may
never use it in their day-to-day lives? Through those questions, I wanted to find out how
the Russian language sounds to them and whether or not they think only Russians should
learn Russian or whether Russian should also be learned by other nationalities.
51
These sets of questions enabled me to examine their overall attitude towards
learning another language; including how much effort from the students’ point of view
should be applied to learning and respecting our first language (Russian). I also wanted to
know if students like to speak Russian and if they like to listen to spoken Russian. This
set of questions will provide a clear representation of how students view their heritage
language. From a person’s attitude, we can learn a lot about their family views and
values, including where they stand as a family towards their heritage language, culture,
customs and traditions. Language is not just a set of words, but a way of living, and
language should be respected and treasured. All these questions were used to analyze the
survey data.
Data Analysis Plan
For analysis of this research, I describe the findings from the results of the
“Language Use and Attitude Survey”. I compare and contrast the information that I found
in the surveys to the scholarship presented in Chapter 2. My main purpose is to find
patterns from the collected data from the surveys, and determine if there exists any
similar patterns in relationship to other researchers discussed in Chapter 2.
In Chapter 4, I will analyze the results that were found in the survey and will have
based conclusions on my finding and the literature review in Chapter 2. In Chapter 5, I
will describe the findings of this research and what further studies need to be done to
better research this topic.
52
Chapter 4
RESULTS
In this chapter, I will examine the results from the student surveys. The data about
family language use; language used with other people living at home; their language
preferences and influence on language choice in the family; who they identify themselves
with; and participants attitude towards their heritage language will be examined. In
Chapter 4, I will be analyzing students’ ethnic identification as defined by the survey
question relating to identification. Chapter 4 will also cover the question about students’
language preferences in the household. One of the questions in the survey asked students
to pick the language that is mostly used in the house, in the family.
Personal Language Use
Using Language with Friends
As shown in the survey results, the general use of Russian language among
children is pretty low. Forty-one students out of sixty (68.3%) are using more English
than Russian or only English when they are talking to their friends in school. Only nine
out of sixty (15%) students use as much Russian as English in their conversations with
their friends in school. Seven students out of sixty (11.6%) use Russian more than
English with their friends at school and only two people out of sixty (3.3%) use Russian
exclusively in communication with their friends. This statistic has a lot to do with the
amount of time the subjects had spent in the United States. Most of the students who took
this survey were born in the United States; however, some (the exact percentage is
unknown, since there was not a question about the age students moved to the United
53
States) of the students recently moved to the United States and had not been exposed to
the language long enough.
Sixteen students out of sixty (26.6%) always use English when they are
communicating with their friends outside of the school. Another twenty-three out of sixty
(38.3%) use more English than Russian in their daily communication with their friends
outside of school. Eleven students out of sixty (18.3%) use as much Russian as English in
their conversations with their friends outside of school. Another eight out of sixty
students (13.3%) use more Russian than English when they talk to their friends outside of
school, and only one student out of sixty (1.6%) uses Russian only when communicating
with friends outside of school. As I mentioned before, results might be affected by recent
moves to the United States and not enough exposure yet to the new language.
The language of the United States is English that gives clear explanation why
students’ language preference is English. The common language spoken among students
is English and all their education in school is delivered in English. Since students have
different friends and not all of them can speak Russian, they usually pick the language
that is common and known for everybody in the group and it is typically English.
However, if one of the friends in the group cannot speak English, the group still chooses
the English language as the language to communicate and somebody will translate to the
student who does not speak English. One study shows students make language choices on
every day bases (Zentella, 2006):
The presence of one monolingual English-speaking child would lead the
group to speak in English but the presence of one [Russian] monolingual
54
might not occasion the corresponding shift in language. Nevertheless, in
the course of everyday interaction, children with limited [Russian] missed
out on information and activities that were communicated in [Russian]
code switches, and sometimes they had to request a translation (Zentella,
2006, p. 52).
Most of the time students have to make language choices unwillingly to survive in
the given circumstances. Students’ choice towards English is simply a way of surviving
and being accepted and successful. English becomes the most comfortable language to
communicate in, to get the point across, and to be understood. After using English as
their main language to communicate in their every day routines, it becomes natural and
easier to use it even in the Russian-speaking environment or with Russian-speaking
friends. To get a better understanding of students language use with friends at school and
outside of school, see Tables 8 and 9.
Table 8
Language Use with Friends at School
Language Use with Friends At School
Boys=30
Girls=30
Always Russian
0
2
More Russian than English
6
1
As much Russian as English
5
5
More English than Russian
13
20
6
2
Always English
55
Table 9
Language Use with Friends Outside of School
Language Use with Friends Outside of School
Boys=30
Girls=30
Always Russian
0
1
More Russian than English
5
3
As much Russian as English
5
6
More English than Russian
12
11
8
9
Always English
Using Language with Older People
This table analyzes the question about language that students choose to use among
older people outside of the student’s home and school. In these results, one can see a
significant difference among students choice toward the Russian language compared to
their choice when they are with their friends. Twenty-five students out of sixty (41.6%)
use more Russian than English or always Russian when they communicate with older
people outside of their home or school. There were more boys who choose Russian
language over English to speak with older people. Nineteen out of sixty (31.6%) students
use the same amount of Russian as English when they have to communicate with older
people from outside of their usual settings. Sixteen out of sixty (26.6%) boys and girls are
still using more English than Russian, or even only English when they talk to older
people from outside of their homes and school. The community they live in and the
amount of years they have lived in the United States might affect a student’s choice of
56
language preference. Economic factors as well as demographic migration, and the
influence of mass media may also affect students’ language choices and proficiency
(Crawford, 1995). “The speech community’s language patterns are related to cultural
norms which reflect, and are shaped by, larger political, socio-economic, and cultural
forces (the social context)” (Zentella, 2006, p. 5). To get a better picture of students
language use with older people from outside home and school, see Table 10.
Table 10
Using Language with Older People Outside the Home and School
Language Use with Older People from Outside of Home and
Boys
Girls
School
(n=30)
(n=30)
Always Russian
1
2
More Russian than English
14
7
As much Russian as English
9
10
More English than Russian
2
9
Always English
4
2
Leisure Activities: Reading, Listening to Music, Watching Television, and Writing to
Friends
Reading Activities: According to Table 10 all sixty boys and girls (100%) never
read “always in Russian” whether reading books or magazines. Only two students out of
sixty (3.3%) read more in Russian than in English and that might be affected by a recent
move to the United States or more access to Russian literature than English. Seventeen
57
students out of sixty (28.3%), eight boys and nine girls read as much in Russian as in
English. However, forty-one students out of sixty (68.3%) are reading mostly in English.
Furthermore, twenty out of sixty (33.3%) read only in English; whether, it is a book or
magazine, they only read in English.
Table 11
Reading Activities
Reading: Books, Magazines
Boys
Girls
(n=30)
(n=30)
Always in Russian
0
0
More in Russian than in English
2
0
As much in Russian as in English
8
9
More in English than in Russian
8
13
12
8
Always in English
Watching Television and Cartoons: We can see in Table 12 that students in the
majority prefer to watch in English rather than Russian when they watch television or
cartoons. One of the reasons might be that English is easier to understand for them and
another is that they have more access to English language television programs and other
forms of media. Only one girl out of sixty boys and girls (1.6%) marked that she always
watches (television or cartoons) in Russian. If only Russian TV channels are available to
her in the home, a choice may not be available to her. Seven students out of sixty
(11.6%), two boys and five girls watch television more in Russian than in English.
58
Eleven students out of sixty (18.3%) are watching television or cartoons as much in
Russian as in English. This data shows that their parents take their first language
seriously and make sure that their children have access to both languages in order to
enrich fluency in both languages. On the other hand, forty-nine boys and girls out of sixty
(81.6%) watch television or cartoons mostly in English or in English only. More than half
of the students who took the survey would prefer English to Russian. It may be because
they do not have enough access to Russian media or simply because they identify more
with English and find it easier to understandable and comfortable to use. To get closer
data about student choices in watching television and cartoons, see Table 12.
Table 12
Watching Television and Cartoons
Watching TV programs, cartoons
Boys
Girls
(n=30)
(n=30)
Always in Russian
0
1
More in Russian than in English
2
5
As much in Russian as in English
6
5
More in English than in Russian
7
8
14
10
Always in English
One boy and one girl marked that they never watch television programs or cartoons.
Listening to Music: In Table 13, we can see patterns for listening to music similar
to those for watching television. Two students out of sixty (3.3%), one boy and one girl,
always listen to music in Russian while five students out of sixty (8.3%), two boys and
59
three girls, are listening to music more in Russian than in English; there is a combination
of the two languages. Twelve students out of sixty (20%) said that they are listening to
music in both languages equally. Yet, forty-one students out of sixty (68.3%), twenty
boys and twenty-one girls, listen to music more in English or always in English. That
might also be explained by more access to music written in English. Students get to listen
to English music in their houses and outside of their houses (at friends’ houses, in school
and in public places etc.). They have much more access to English music while Russian
music may be limited to only CD’s brought from Russia or specific music heard in
church.
Table 13
Listening to Music
Listen to Music
Boys
Girls
(n=30)
(n=30)
Always in Russian
1
1
More in Russian than in English
2
3
As much in Russian as in English
7
5
More in English than in Russian
10
17
Always in English
10
4
Writing to relatives: It was pleasant surprise to find out that most of the students,
fifty-five out of sixty (91.6%) write to their relatives. In Table 14, we can see that data
60
differs tremendously from all the other tables. We see more students using Russian to
write to relatives in Russia. The fact that their relatives live in Russia and most can
communicate only in Russian leaves them little choice. Thirteen students out of sixty
(21.6%) said that they always write in Russian to their relatives. Twelve students out of
sixty (20%) marked that they write more in Russian than in English. Eleven students out
of sixty (18.3%) write in Russian as much as in English when they write to their relatives.
The numbers might be affected by the fact that most of their relatives are living here and
both languages can be used for communication. In fact, there is a percentage of students
who write to their relatives mostly or always in English; nineteen students out of sixty
(31.6%). Unfortunately, many Russian students can understand the Russian language
pretty well, but their reading, writing and sometimes speaking skills are less developed or
are slipping away because they are not used exclusively in Russian; most of the time,
parents will have to translate a letter that a grandchild wrote in English to a grandmother
or grandfather because the child cannot write in Russian. According to Zentella (2006),
“As they grew up in an English-dominant nation that belittled their bilingualism,
children’s networks spoke more English than [Russian] and children became less
proficient in [Russian] than English” (Zentella, 2006, p. 54). To get a better
understanding of students’ language choice in writing, see Table 14.
Table 14
Writing to Relatives
Writing to Relatives
Boys
Girls
61
(n=30)
(n=30)
Always in Russian
7
6
More in Russian than in English
7
5
As much in Russian as in English
3
8
More in English than in Russian
5
7
Always in English
4
3
One girl and four boys marked that they never write to their relatives in either language.
Since all sixty students who took the survey attend Future Academy, which has
mainly Slavic enrollment (about 99%), Russian language class is required for all students,
regardless of their background. I wanted to know if they use their first language, in this
case Russian, to communicate with their teachers. Most of all, I wanted to see if they
would use this opportunity to use their Russian language or regardless of the choice,
would they still prefer English. Table 15 shows students’ language choice with their
school teachers.
Table 15
Speaking with a School Teacher
Language Use with Your School Teacher
Boys
Girls
(n=30)
(n=30)
Always in Russian
0
0
More in Russian than in English
0
2
In Russian as much as in English
0
6
62
More in English than in Russian
10
8
Always in English
20
14
The table clearly shows that students prefer using English in their conversations
with their teachers. However, it is not only affected by the student’s personal choice, but
also by the fact that not every teacher is a bilingual. Only eight students out of sixty
(13.3%) speak in Russian to their teachers as much as in English; two students said that
they speak more in Russian than in English; and zero students said that they speak to their
teachers only the Russian. This is perfectly understandable because the education is in
English and classes must be taught in English, yet they do have Russian class twice a
week where they supposedly must use their Russian language. We found that these eight
students are girls, and none of the boys using their Russian language skills to converse
with their teachers. A possible explanation is that girls are more talkative and more social
than boys. The rest of the fifty-two out of sixty students (86.6%) marked that they
communicate more in English than in Russian with their school teacher and thirty-four
marked that they communicate only in English. “Similarly, the community defined being
bilingual in a way that reflected the prevalence of speakers who could speak and
understand one language fluently, but whose command of the other language was more
passive than receptive, that is, they could understand it much better than they could speak
it” (Estella, 2006, p. 54).
63
Use of Russian Language with Immediate Family
Students were asked to mark the language they use in their every day lives with
their immediate family: parents to siblings, siblings to parents. Taken as a whole, the use
of Russian language in the families was high. Thirty out of sixty (50%) used Russian
language most of the time or all of the time when they were communicating with their
families. Twenty out of sixty (33.3%) students use an average amount of Russian in their
everyday communications with their families; usually they mix both languages in their
conversations. Surprisingly, only ten students out of sixty (16.6%) use a small amount of
Russian and prefer English in their communications with their parents. Even though, their
main language of communication is English, nobody marked that the only language of
communication is English; all sixty students said that at least some amount of Russian
has been used in each household. However, within the family context, Russian is spoken
quite often which makes sense since almost all parents were born outside of the United
States and even some students were born in Russian speaking countries. Many factors
play in the language choices for the family; however, it is parents who decide how much
of which language they want in their households. Many other aspects also affect students’
proficiency level in one language or the other. Even though students’ mostly watch
English television programs, go to English movies, watch cartoons and listen to music
with English words, the Russian language is always a part of their background and
present in their environment. Zentella (2006) tells about the heritage language always
being at the background of immigrant children growing up; even though, most of the time
it has not been used in conversations:
64
[Russian], however, was always in the background in songs and prayers
from the …church, in … music from the juke-box, in the comments of
domino players, the conversations of the [sellers] and their clients, the
older mothers’ admonitions to children and their personal chats, the
hawking of wares by passing street vendors and hustlers… (Zentella,
2006, p. 50).
To get a better look at Russian language usage between our subjects and immediate
family, see Table 16.
Table 16
Use of Russian Language with Immediate Family
Use of Russian Language with the
Number of Students at
Gender (b-
Immediate Family
this Level
30, g-30)
80-100% (high)
30 b-15, g-15
60-79% (medium)
20 b-8, g-12
59% and below (low)
10 b-4, g-6
The society will not teach our children their native language; the society speaks
one language only: in England – it is English, in Germany – it is German, in Finland – it
is Finnish, in Russia – it is Russian, and business of conservation of the native language
lays completely on the shoulders of the family. Parents and grandparents are the only
people in whose interests are to keep the native language alive in their children. Only
they make a decision to teach or not to teach children the family or mother tongue.
65
Unfortunately, parents frequently do not want to train children to use their native
language; some of them are concerned about an intellectual overload of their children.
Frequently parents support unwillingness of their children to talk in not prestigious
Russian language in the environment their children placed for the protections reasons,
thinking that their children can be laughed at or misunderstood. Moreover, parents and
grandparents are trying to help their children to learn a language that they do not know
themselves. Some parents even refuse to teach their children Russian, worrying that it
might interfere with their English proficiency. Regrettably, without help from parents and
family, a large number of children will loose the possibility of mastering the Russian
language at a native level.
The reason why some parents think that bilingualism may cause “brain overload”
or put stress on a child is because they themselves see learning another language as
stressful. Parents often cannot understand that what their children go through learning
another language is not similar to their own experience and see it as their own reaction
and their own feelings about a new language (Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2001). Because of
their age, parents approach the language learning on a completely different level than
their children. This is due to social, psychological and neurological reasons. “Parents
‘think’ a language, young children ‘sense’ it. (Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2001, pp. 30-31).
People of different ages have different peer groups, consequently different pressures to
practice activities. An infant, a five-year-old, a teenager, and their parent will each have a
different experience and on a very different level of foreign language learning, with
different pressures and different levels of success (Harris, 1998).
66
However, parent concern can be clearly understood, since bilingualism is an easy
target when problems arise at school. It is true that a bilingual child begins speaking and
uses language fluently hazily later than their monolingual corresponding person does. It
is a fact that bilinguals tend to hesitate before answering a question, and may appear
hesitant, when in reality; they may know the answer but lack the vocabulary to express it.
The problem is the lack of vocabulary and not comprehension. On measures of creativity,
bilinguals or multilinguals have been shown to be superior to monolinguals (Ricciardelli,
1992).
Even in Russian charter schools, children get very limited amounts of Russian
language. It is necessary and even crucial to publish manuals and curriculum addressed
not only to teachers, but also to parents. It is important to have workshops to teach
parents how to keep family language alive in the bilingual, multicultural society. It is
necessary to educate children about their history, culture and literature, and create some
social groups by interests in Russian Diaspora where children and their parents can use
their language and do something they are interested in. For this reason, it is necessary to
study ways of maintenance, language progress and cultural traditions among various
generations of Russian Diaspora (Liuykkonen, A. I., n.d.). To get a better picture of
overall language use in the house, see Table 17.
Table 17
Using Language Within the Home
Overall Language Use in the House
Boys
Girls
67
(n=30)
(n=30)
Always Russian
8
3
Always English
1
2
17
22
4
3
English and Russian
Other
Overall language use in the house is still looking respectable. The majority of
students are still using Russian language as their way of communicating with their closest
family. Eleven students out of sixty (18.3%) always speak Russian to their siblings,
parents and grandparents. Thirty- nine out of sixty (65%) students use Russian and
English equally in their every day communication with their immediate family. Seven
students out of sixty (11.6%) said that they use other languages (Ukrainian, Moldavian)
to converse with their close family. Only three students out of sixty (5%) said that they
only use English language in their conversations with their families. The language choice
might be influenced because one parent is an English only speaker and this causes the
family to choose English as their priority tongue. Yet, the largest percentage of students
is still using both languages in their everyday conversations. Through my personal
observations, I noticed that students usually switch from one language to another when
they talk to their parents, choosing the easiest word in either language. Usually it happens
unconsciously when in the casual conversation; children mix languages using the word
that is the most familiar or comes to mind the fastest. On the other hand, in most cases
children use only the English language in their communications with their siblings
68
because English is the easiest and most common for them to use. Since all the siblings in
the family went through the same schooling and background, it is more common for them
to choose English over Russian in the conversations between them. To get better
understanding of language use between interlocutors, see Table 18.
Table 18
Language of Use between Interlocutors
Conversation between
Always
Sometimes
Always
speaker - listener
Russian
Russian/sometimes English
English
Mother - Father
47
12
1
Father - Mother
25
15
0
Student - Mother
26
30
4
Mother - Student
42
18
0
Student - Father
33
25
2
Father - Student
38
21
1
Student - Siblings
6
34
20
Siblings - Student
8
32
20
Use of the Russian Language with House Guests
According to the data from students’ surveys, the majority of the students have
frequent guests at their houses. High use of Russian is used in almost every situation in
which guests are in the home. Parents and children mostly speak Russian to their guests;
69
it might be because the Russian guests speak only Russian. Most of these guests are
either relatives (grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins) or very close family friends
who also come to the family events on a regular basis. A large number of parents use
only Russian with family guests; however, among children, both languages are used
quite equally. It might be interpreted that children usually play with their children guests
(cousins or children of the family guests) and the common and easiest language for them
to use is English. There is still a very small percentage of students who always use
English in all of their communications with their guests (5%); some amount of Russian is
still present in almost every family gathering. Studies show that the same patterns happen
with all the minor groups in the United States. “Ultimately there were almost as many
language patterns as families because of the unique configurations of several variables,
including the number of caregivers and children, and differences in language proficiency,
education, bilingual literacy skills, years in the US, gender and age of each speaker”
(Zentella, 2006, p. 58). To get a better understanding of use of Russian language with
house guests, see Table 19.
Table 19
Using Language with House Guests
Use of Russian Language with House
Number of
Gender (b-30, g-
Guests
Students
30)
80-100% (high)
40 b-22, g-18
60-79% (medium)
17 b-7, g-10
70
59% and below (low)
3 b-1, g-2
Four of the sixty students (6.6%), one girl and three boys, left all of the questions blank
which might lead us to believe that they do not have many house guests stay in their
homes.
Self Identity
Students were given an opportunity to identify themselves by choosing from a
number of categories things they felt identified them best. More than half of the students
marked that they are both Russian and English, and some students marked three different
identities, since they come from monolingual families where more than one culture is
represented. Students spent so much of their time speaking English and watching
television programs in English that they could not separate themselves from the English
language and start seeing themselves more as part of American culture and language and
not Russian. When asking students with whom they identify, they do not hesitate to
answer that they are both Russian and American. Furthermore, since they still spend
enough time with their family and close friends speaking Russian and attending Russian
church, students still have strong sense of belonging to their culture. According to
Zentella (2006), our community defines for us which group we will feel we are most a
part of. “Each community’s use of language is part of a coherent whole, and both
quantitative and qualitative methods are needed to adequately analyze linguistic rules in
relation to the whole” (Zentella, 2006, p. 6). Students’ identity choices connect closely to
their language proficiency, and they can be proficient in their first language only if their
71
family puts effort into teaching them and making sure that they are communicating with
their family in the language that keeps them connected to the culture. “The age of the
child, the length and frequency of the visits and the background of the relatives they
visited determined the intensity of the [Russian] language experience” (Zentella, 2006, p.
50). The language is the only connection to the culture. To check the data for student’s
identity, see Table 20.
Table 20
Identifying Self
Number of Students
Identity
(n=60)
Russian
45
English
39
Other (Bulgarian, Moldavian, Ukrainian, Belarusian,
German)
22
Language Attitude Score
According to the data collected from the student surveys, the majority of students
have positive attitudes towards their heritage language. Forty of the sixty students (67%)
have a high positive outlook on the family language and see the importance of
recognizing and learning this language. Seventeen out of sixty (28%) students think
intermediate of their heritage language and see it as equally as important as English.
Those involved in the survey think it should be learned not only by Russian people, but
72
also by others. Moreover, only three out of sixty (5%) think low of their heritage
language and do not see that it is important to learn or maintain it since they might not
ever use it. To get closer data about language attitude score, see Table 21.
Table 21
Scoring Language Attitude
Language Attitude Score (Positive for Heritage
Number of
Gender (b-30,
Language)
Students
g- 30)
80-100% (high)
40 b-22, g-18
60-79% (medium)
17 b-7, g-10
59% and below (low)
3 b-1, g-2
Data shows us that the majority of students think pretty highly about their first
language and see it as important to learn, although they are not using that language
frequently in every day situations because they find English easier to learn and use to
communicate. Sixty- five percent of the sixty students who took the survey think English
is a language that is easy to learn and communicate in. Fifty-two percent of students said
that they like to speak Russian and 40 % said that they like to listen to how others speak
Russian. Even though the percentage of students who have good attitude towards Russian
language is relatively high, students still pick English over Russian when they
communicate with their siblings or friends. English is easy to catch up and use among
bigger groups of people. Speech is something that has been dictated by society, and it is
impossible to go against the majority. “The speech community’s language patterns are
73
related to cultural norms which reflect, and are shaped by, larger political, socioeconomic, and cultural forces (the social context)” (Zentella, 2006, p. 5).
Russian language is weakly exercised even among Russian immigrants because it
is much too complicated; it has too many rules and too many exceptions to the rules. The
information needs to be processed fast and easy in order to be understood by new
generation. We live in a very fast and computerized world, and fast communication and
convenience of a dialogue plays a major and crucial part in the modern world. Moreover,
convenience of a dialogue depends on the convenience of language. Our children are not
only choosing the easiest way to communication in either language Russian or English,
but they are trying to minimize and shorten all the words, by speaking with short phrases
and text abbreviations; there is an abbreviation to almost every word that is longer than
three symbols. Our children live in the world where they do not like to think for long and
try to create their speech; it must come quickly and be short; just enough to get the point
across.
Thirty percent of students disagree that learning English is more important than
learning Russian and seventy-seven percent disagree with the statement that learning
Russian is useless because they may never use it. Contentedly, participants still think
strongly about Russian as equally important as English, in some cases, even more
important than English. Forty-three percent of students think that we should all try harder
to use the Russian language in our every day lives. However, if that is not the rule of the
household it is really difficult for children to keep it alive and make it a rule for
themselves. Only 5% of students think mediocre about their heritage language and do not
74
think that it is important to use and know their first language. Parents who do not see
their home language as important and do not pass it on to their children might influence
that. However, a very large percent of families see their home language as the main
language for their families. Even though children may sometimes have difficulties
speaking their first language, they have love for the language and respect for their
ancestry and the culture that is being passed to them by their parents and grandparents.
Despite all the contradictions, according to the close statistics given to me by a
Russian language teacher from Community Outreach Academy, 96% of the students from
the whole school are reading and writing in Russian in the Russian language class that
every students is required to take once a week. Moreover, all of the students are required
to complete homework in Russian language for this class, although the homework
assignment is pretty small with one writing page and one reading page. Another 4% of
the students are on a special more flexible Russian language program because Russian
language might not be their first language. All students are together in one class, but they
might have to do work with different level of difficulty, depending on their language
proficiency level.
Conclusion
Why is it necessary for children who were born in the United States to know
Russian? Those who consider learning Russian an important factor may answer this
question differently: some might say that knowing heritage language gives children an
opportunity to communicate with their grandmothers and grandfathers; others might think
that it will help them not to loose access to the culture of their ancestors; others may
75
believe that knowing an extra language will never hurt. In addition, some of them might
feel that all of these points are important. Many Russian parents care about their
children’s ability to speak and even to read in the language of their native land.
The majority of Russian parents see an important factor for their children to keep
Russian alive, and try to work hard in accomplishing that by: talking to their children in
Russian, employing Russian tutors, and sending children to Russian-speaking programs.
They also try on their own to teach their children to read and write in Russian (Mironov,
n.d.).
However, as the results of this research show, the effectiveness of these efforts is
very narrow. In dialogues with their friends, even from Russian speaking families,
children tend to switch to English because it is an easier language for communication.
(Fisher, 1965, 1966; Zentella, 2006). Many children switch to English, even when they
are speaking to their parents, regardless of whether or not their parents insists on them
speaking Russian. Children's Russian increasingly moves away from the standard
Russian language and turns into informal slang Russian.
It occurs that it is clear enough and without special research that even if a house’s
main language is Russian, later when a child enters an English speaking school, English
takes over and becomes more dominant for a child. To be successful in American schools
and later on in a university and a work place, one needs to know English which leaves
practically no place for Russian. Unfortunately, Russian children who live in the United
States do not understand the need for the Russian language when to succeed and get
around they need English. Fortunately, some of the parents were able to explain to their
76
children the importance of the home language. However, the situation with Russian
language is far from hopeless. As results of this research show, the majority of children
even the ones that prefer English to Russian, are capable of keeping a conversation in
Russian language for quite some time. Many of them can even read and write (writing is
not as common) in the Russian language. However, the question that still arises from this
work is how to keep Russian alive in children who were born and grew up away from
Russian and Russian culture?
In the opinion of many teenagers, Russian is a language of adults and parents
(unlike English which is perceived as language of peers). The more a child communicates
with his/her parents, the better their Russian will be. Therefore, in many families the 2-3
year old child, who has always been with the family, knows Russian much better than the
6-7 year old child who started intensively to communicate with peers. Accordingly, the
better the atmosphere within the family the more interesting it will be for children with
their parents and most likely they will keep the interest to parental (heritage) language.
Most importantly, if children respect their parents they will always respect and speak the
language of their parents out of respect to the parents and everything that is important for
parents (Fishman, 1965; Kopeliovich, 2009).
The language study occurs is more successful when it is not objective, and it
would be easier for a child to learn and speak the language if it could be seen as a
necessary and more useful language: as a language that is needed for participation in
drama school or book club, or maybe for attending art classes, etc. The ability to
participate in something that extends beyond family conversation and gives important
77
and broader relativity to student learning. (Kopeliovich, 2009). The child’s attitude about
many things strongly depends on opinion of associates, first of all contemporaries.
Therefore, if a child appears in the company of nobility speaking Russian, and it is
“cool,” most likely that child will want to improve his/her Russian (Fishman, 1965).
The later a child who was born in immigration will learn to read in Russian, the
more complex the whole Russian reading will become because age appropriate books
(fairy tales, children’s books etc.) will be boring for a child and would not be a motivator
to continue. Therefore, for conservation of a language it is very important to learn to read
in that language at an appropriate age (seven – eight years old) (Azandula, 1988; Baker
1996; Fishman, 1965, 1966; Kopeliovich, 2009).
Often it seems to parents that all of their efforts to keep the native language alive
go to ashes: children switch to English, do not wish to read and even to speak in Russian.
Nevertheless, it is not necessarily the death of the language. Russian is a language of a
high culture. It is usually not too clear and interesting to children and teenagers, but with
the years, the perception often changes. Kopeliovich uses many examples in his research
like the immigrant who had forgotten Russian as a teenager. While he was in the army or
at university, he suddenly recalled the language of his parents and started to speak and
even read in Russian. Therefore, even if a child resolutely does not wish to know his/her
heritage language, it does not mean that all of it is lost (Fishman 1965, Kopeliovich,
2009; Zentella, 2006).
In modern times in the Untied States the Russian-speaking life is rich and varied:
there are bookstores, tons of newspapers and magazines, sets of interests circles and
78
clubs, churches, some Russian-speaking TV channels, and boundless opportunities on the
Internet. However, before using all these opportunities children need to gain a
foundational knowledge of the language, and they can gain that only from their families.
Differently, if parents, the grandfather and the grandmother will not speak, read or sing in
Russian, no mugs and libraries will help – the child will forget Russian, and will
remember at best separate words and phrases (Fishman, 1965; 1966). Therefore, if the
home language is important for families, they should only rely on themselves. Private
tutors and teachers might help a great deal but they will never replace the influence and
the impact of the family.
There are many different factors that play a great role of implementing language
loss or language maintenance. Even though the research was small and was limited to
only sixty participants, the results might not be adequate for every case and might be seen
more in general than exact and only scenery. There are as many different scenarios as
there are different families, situations and circumstances. Outside influences such as
economic opportunities, code-switching, unfamiliar situations and classroom placement
may have affected students’ survey choices as well as the data collection.
Although the circumstances were not perfect, we can see some valuable trends
immerge that gives us positive feeling about the whole process of the language
maintenance. There is more to be done in this area in further studies before we have a real
understanding of the language acquisition (Russian) process.
79
Chapter 5
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
This thesis examined language used among Russian children, their attitudes
towards their home language and their oral, speaking and listening proficiency in
Russian. All the subjects used in my survey are Russian speaking students from Future
Academy Elementary School. This study showed big differences between understanding
the language and being able to speak the language. It clearly showed that understanding
a language and speaking language is not the same thing. Children that easily understand
their parents and others who speak to them in Russian, might have difficulties answering
in the same language. From this research, it is clear that listening and speaking skills are
not the equivalent and both require a lot of practice in order to be able to communicate
fully and comfortably.
However, the study also shows that Russian language still plays a major part in
the lives of children, since they are still at the age when most of the time is spent talking
to their parents, grandparents and relatives. Six grade students have not been exposed to
the outside world much yet; the only place they go outside of their homes are school and
church. All of the participants in my study attend Future Academy Elementary School
where 99% of the enrollment is Russian. Subsequently, students have the opportunity to
use their Russian language with friends at school as well. Most Russian families attend
Russian churches where the service is delivered in Russian. Yet, with so much exposure
to the Russian language, there are still a large percentage of students who have
difficulties speaking Russian fluently.
80
The finding from this study shows that, despite the fact that all of the participants
are from Russian background, they still use English the majority of the time when
interacting with each other. English is clearly the most common and more convenient
language for them to use with one another. Parents do everything they can to keep their
children interested in their heritage language and culture including taking them to
Russian church, Russian after school programs, Russian kids camps, buying them
Russian cartoons and TV programs, but circumstances and the dominant language (there
is still predominance of English in general within the society they now live) work against
them.
The survey clearly shows a preference for English among school-age children
during all of their leisure and free time activities. A large percent of students listen to
music, watch television programs or cartoons, and read, preferably or only, in the English
language. Also, a very large percentage of students choose English over Russian when
they speak to their friends outside of school or home and to the guests of their house.
English happens to be the easiest and first choice for children.
However, the participants spoke more Russian or only Russian when they
communicated with their mothers or fathers. It shows that parents value their heritage
language and put a lot of effort into continuing to speak to their children in Russian. The
study also shows that the students understand the importance of using Russian language
with parents because of the expectations that they know their parents hold in relationship
to culture and identity. Unfortunately, the biggest mistake most parents make is not
encouraging their children to speak in Russian. Most of the Russian parents would always
81
speak in Russian to their children, but would not insist on their children answering back
in the Russian language. Usually by high school age, children can perfectly understand
the Russian language, but are unable to communicate orally or in written form.
Encouragingly, students in this study demonstrated positive attitudes towards their
heritage language. The large percent of students see learning Russian as an important
aspect of their life and do believe that more people should be introduced to the Russian
language and culture. They showed their interest towards the Russian language by saying
that they like to hear other people speaking Russian. Students like to have the Russian
language as a subject in their school and the majority of those who are in the Russian
program at school can read and write in Russian. All these abilities give them more
confidence in themselves and raise their interest toward their heritage language.
Implications
For further study on this topic, a number of implications arise and can be studied
in the most careful and detailed manner about language maintenance and loss among
Russian-American children.
Research Implications
Psychologists have felt for a long time that verbal capacities of the person are one
of the basic components of human intelligence. Sometimes speaking is not all about
verbal capacities in general, but the capacity of establishing and creating a statement,
being able to get a point across that can be understood and processed by others. As a fact
that can be observed among the people around us, some are concerned with all that
happens around them and catch all the little nuances and moments of life thoroughly
82
living them through; another person slides on the surface, missing not only minor details,
but some very important aspects of life. One person easily uses his/her verbal abilities in
either language without effort and writes as if the pen itself produces the words; another
cannot orally connect two words together in either language and writing seems a
nightmare. As a fact, speech capacities and writing abilities can both be learned and made
through practice to improve. Those are not abilities that one either has or does not have.
For further study, I think it would be beneficial to check students’ writing levels. I
did not concentrate on writing in my research; I just got a general statement from their
Russian language teacher about student writing as a class. However, it would really
benefit the research if students would be asked to provide some kind of writing sample to
see their capabilities in organizing and producing thoughts on paper. I would also add
more questions to the survey about their writing choices to get a better feeling for their
attitudes towards writing in Russian.
I had one question where I asked them about their language choices when they
write to their relatives. A large percent of students do not write to their relatives at all
probably because there is no need to write to them. However, there still was a large
percent of students who write in Russian to their relatives that live in Russia.
Nonetheless, this study did not focus on this information to get the appropriate data, so it
would be very beneficial to concentrate on this in further study.
In addition, to further the research a recording of students speaking ability would
help to understand the level of their oral competence and comprehension. If students can
be recorded in a relaxed, familiar and comfortable atmosphere while talking to their peers
83
or classmates, it would bring a better understanding of how students act when they are in
the most comfortable atmosphere. Through that recording, we could sample language
proficiency and level of understanding first-hand. Students can also be recorded in the
family setting with their parents in one setting and their sibling in another. Later those
two settings can be compared for the understanding of their language choice and what
factors affect that choice: comfort level, tone, and topic of the conversation or some other
factors would likely play a role. To further the study, students can be observed and
recorded at school in an academic setting to see what language choice they make.
As I mentioned before this study, I was concentrating more on students’ language
choice when they speak with friends or family members rather than on their language
proficiency. Consequently, this research could be made more meaningful by looking into
levels of proficiency in their heritage language and in language proficiency over all. As
we all know, knowledge is transferable, and if a child is proficient in one language, it is
much easier for him or her to become proficient in another language.
Educational Implications
This research has many educational implications. The Russian language has been
broadly used among Russian families in their households, but not in educational school
settings. There is a large need to incorporate Russian language in children’s everyday
education, so it will give children an understanding that their home language is equally as
important and appreciated in their country and the school. To fill the educational gap in
Russian students’ first language, there can be after school programs conducted in Russian
language and emphasizing Russian culture and traditions. Maybe during recess or lunch
84
there can be areas where children can come to hang out and enjoy a conversation or a
game in their home language. Since there is a large Russian population, schools might
have a month or a week where they celebrate Russian culture and traditions, not just
Russian food. Demonstrating the importance of Russian language and culture, would help
students love their culture and be proud of their heritage and who they are. Students need
more opportunities to hear their language being used in settings other than just their
households.
To gain student interest and appreciation for their home language, schools should
invite successful Russian speakers to give talks about their success. Russian children
always hear from their parents that the Russian language is important, and it will help in
the future. However, we all know that children tend to not believe their parents and think
that they are too hard on them. Having to listen to a successful Russian person who gets
to use his/her Russian in a profession will be a great motivator for children to do well in
their heritage language once they realize that it may be helpful to them in the future.
Students should hear from companies that are hiring English Learners and Russian
Bilinguals even though it is very important to know Standard English when living in an
English-speaking country. Bilingual people are highly appreciated and needed in many
areas of employment. Students should hear from companies and individuals that being
able to read, write and speak Russian is very important and opens many more
employment opportunities for them. Children as well as all of us, need to have a
motivator to move on and have the goals. Students need to see that there are places where
85
they can use their Russian skills besides their household and they need to be highly
proficient.
Since we live in a highly bilingual country all the teachers, coworkers, employers,
policy makers, and administrators need to be taught about bilingualism. People need to
know basic things about bilingual people and what they bring. People need to be
educated about differences in cultures, in beliefs and traditions. The more people know,
the more accepting and understanding they will become. Although some schools are very
supportive towards learning home language in school, more programs throughout the
country should be established to support children’s first language and culture. In addition,
all the teachers need to be aware of some cultural differences and uniqueness about the
cultural groups they have in their classroom. Every student is an individual learner that
needs to be seen as one; moreover, there are some cultural differences that every teacher
must be aware of to be at better service for his/her students. Native speaker classes should
help students to develop cultural and traditional awareness and appreciation as well as
work towards their heritage language proficiency.
Conclusion
The Russian-speaking population in the United States grew tremendously in the
past ten years. It would appear reasonable, that the more Russians get together, the easier
it should be to keep Russian language alive. In practice, we find the opposite to be true, if
there is a lack of practice outside of household and a lack of commitment, conservation of
a language is impossible. Unfortunately, in the best scenarios, children learn and know
Russian language as their second language. The prestige of the English language in this
86
country is very high, that makes children resist the Russian language, simply because
they do not see a point of learning Russian language, which is very difficult to learn if the
only place they use it is their household.
Despite all of the complexities found in this study, maintaining heritage language
among all the students remains important. If we do not teach our children their heritage
language, when all of the older generation pass on, the Russian language will die because
all the children will stop speaking “the parents’ language” all together. Loss in language
will mean loss in culture and identity. This must be an on-going study. There is much
more research that needs to be done if we hope to prevent language loss among our
children. We must help them find meaning and take pride in their home language if they
are going to maintain the Russian language and pass it on to their children.
87
APPENDIX A
Language Use and Attitudes Survey for 6th graders (11-12 years old Russian-American
students)
1. Boy___________
Girl____________
School__________________________
2. Do you attend Russian classes at your school?
Yes________ No__________
3. What language do you use with your friends at school?
Always Russian_____
More Russian than English______
As much Russian as English________
More English than Russian_______
Always English_____
4. What language do you use with your friends outside of school?
Always Russian_____
More Russian than English______
As much Russian as English________
More English than Russian_______
Always English_____
5. What language do you use with older people from outside home?
Always Russian_____
More Russian than English______
As much Russian as English________
More English than Russian_______
Always English_____
6. What language do you use with older people from outside school?
Always Russian_____
More Russian than English______
As much Russian as English________
More English than Russian_______
Always English_____
7. When you read books, they are
Always in Russian_____
More in Russian than English______
As much in Russian as in English________
88
More in English than in Russian_______
Always in English_____
8. When you watch television programs or cartoons, they are
Always in Russian_____
More in Russian than English______
As much in Russian as English________
More in English than Russian_______
Always in English_____
9. When you read magazines, they are
Always in Russian_____
More in Russian than in English______
In Russian as much as in English________
More in English than in Russian_______
Always in English_____
10. When you listen to music, it is
Always in Russian_____
More in Russian than in English______
In Russian as much as in English________
More in English than in Russian_______
Always in English_____
11. How do you write to your relatives?
Always in Russian_____
More in Russian than in English______
In Russian as much as in English________
More in English than in Russian_______
Always in English_____
12. With your school teachers, you speak
Always Russian_____
More Russian than English______
In Russian as much as in English________
More in English than in Russian_______
Always in English_____
13. What languages is/are used by the people living in your home?
Always Russian_____
Always English_____
English and Russian____
Others____
89
Always
Russian
14. Your father speaks to your mother
______
15. Your mother speaks to your father
_______
16. Your father speaks to you
_______
17. You speak to your father
_______
18. Your mother speaks to you
_______
19. You speak to your mother
_______
20. You speak to your brothers and sisters _______
21. Your brothers and sisters speak to you _______
If other people live with you
22. Your father speaks to them
23. They speak to your father
24. Your mother speaks to them
25. They speak to your mother
26. You speak to them
27. They speak to you
Sometimes English
sometimes Russian
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
Always
English
______
______
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_______
_______
_______
_______
_______
_______
28. Where were you born?___________________________
29. If you were born outside the United States, where were you born? _______________
30. Where was your father born? _____________________
31. Where was your mother born? ____________________
32. How do you identify yourself? (You may choose more than one)
______Russian
______English
______Other__________________
33. I would approve of all the children in my town studying Russian.
____ Strongly Agree ____ Agree ____ Neutral ____ Disagree ____ Strongly Disagree
34. Learning Russian is unpleasant.
____ Strongly Agree ____ Agree ____ Neutral ____ Disagree ____ Strongly Disagree
35. Learning Russian is useless because I may never use it.
____ Strongly Agree ____ Agree ____ Neutral ____ Disagree ____ Strongly Disagree
36. We should all try harder to use Russian more frequently.
90
____ Strongly Agree ____ Agree ____ Neutral ____ Disagree ____ Strongly Disagree
37. Learning English is more important than learning Russian.
____ Strongly Agree ____ Agree ____ Neutral ____ Disagree ____ Strongly Disagree
38. I live in a place where Russian is spoken, so I must know, study and speak Russian.
____ Strongly Agree ____ Agree ____ Neutral ____ Disagree ____ Strongly Disagree
39. Only Russians should study Russian.
____ Strongly Agree ____ Agree ____ Neutral ____ Disagree ____ Strongly Disagree
40. Russian is a bad sounding language.
____ Strongly Agree ____ Agree ____ Neutral ____ Disagree ____ Strongly Disagree
41. I like (or I would like) to speak Russian.
____ Strongly Agree ____ Agree ____ Neutral ____ Disagree ____ Strongly Disagree
42. I like listening to people speak Russian.
____ Strongly Agree ____ Agree ____ Neutral ____ Disagree ____ Strongly Disagree
43. In my town, other languages than English should be studied.
____ Strongly Agree ____ Agree ____ Neutral ____ Disagree ____ Strongly Disagree
44. Russian is more important than English.
____ Strongly Agree ____ Agree ____ Neutral ____ Disagree ____ Strongly Disagree
45. English is a language that is easy to learn.
____ Strongly Agree ____ Agree ____ Neutral ____ Disagree ____ Strongly Disagree
91
APPENDIX B
“No Risk” Consent Form
Consent to Participate in Research
The purpose of the study is to examine home language maintenance among
Russian-American children. You are being asked to participate in research which will be
conducted by Liliya Zhernokleyeva in the Bilingual/Multicultural Department at
California State University, Sacramento. The purpose of the study is to investigate the
naturally-occurring frequencies of language loss among second generation RussianAmerican children. This information is important because of its implications of language
loss that appears with other language groups. Your child will be asked to fill out the
survey of his language preferences in every day situations. This procedure is completely
safe and is not associated with any known health risks. Moreover, if your child feels
uncomfortable answering those questions he/she may decline to answer and may stop at
any time during survey. However, if any adverse effect happens and your child gets upset
form any question, the school provides the school nurse or vice principal, Ivan Leshchuk
whom students may talk to about any discomfort.
To make sure that students will not suffer from loss of class time, the principal
has authorized to conduct survey in the gym and pull out all of the participants at the
same time. The survey will take no longer than 20-30 minutes and once your child is
finished with the survey he/she may go back to their class. Your child may choose not to
participate in this survey without negative consequences for him/her.
You may not personally benefit from participating in this research. However,
Bilingual/Multicultural studies like this will benefit from this information to examine the
degree of, and causes of, language maintenance and language loss among RussianAmerican families.
The survey will be confidential and your child’s information will not be exposed,
and no personal information will be shared. The survey will not ask for students’ names
or any personal information. However, the results of the study as a whole may be shared
with the education community and become a matter of public record. Once your child’s
survey responses have been obtained and recorded, the surveys will be destroyed.
92
If you have any questions about this research, you may contact Liliya
Zhernokleyeva at (916) 335-6518 or by e-mail at liljuljka@hotmail.com. You may also
contact faculty sponsor of this research Lisa William-White at lywwhite@csus.edu.
You may decline for your child to be a participant in this study without any
consequences. Your signature below indicates that you have read this page and agree to
participate in the research.
__________________________
Signature of Participant Parent
______________
Date
93
APPENDIX C
Assent Form for a Child
Agreement to Participate in Research
I am asking you to participate in a research project on home language maintenance
among Russian-American children and parents. My name is Liliya Zhernokleyeva and I
am a graduate student in the Bilingual/Multicultural Department and I would like to
request your help in participating in my research. The research will benefit from this
information to examine the degree of, and causes of, language maintenance and language
loss among Russian-American families.
You will be given a survey and will be asked to answer 44 questions to your best ability.
Your answer to these questions will be confidential. You do not have to answer questions
if you do not want to and you may stop at any time if you feel that you do not want to
continue. There will be no negative consequences and it would not affect your grades.
The survey will take place in the school gym and will not take longer than 30 minutes.
After you done answering all the questions you may leave and go back to your class, you
do not have to wait for your classmates.
If you get upset from any question of this survey and would like to talk to someone, you
may go to school nurse or talk to vice principal Ivan Leschuk.
The results from the survey, and your participation in this research, will be kept private.
Your parents have already been asked whether it is OK with them for you to be in this
research, but if you decide not to participate, you will not be required to do so. Please
write your name and today’s date on the line below if you are willing to be in the
research.
____________________
Signature of Participant
________________________________
Date
94
APPENDIX D
Human Subjects Form
Protocol Number 10-11- _ _ _
(Assigned by Office of Research)
Request for Review by the Sacramento State
Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (Revised 09/2010)
Submit 11 copies of this form and any attachments to the Office of Research Administration,
Hornet Bookstore, Suite 3400, mail code 6111. Please type your responses or use a word
processor.
Handwritten forms will be returned without review.
Project Title: Home language maintenance among Russian-American children.
Funding Agency (if any): N/A
Name(s) and affiliation(s) of Researchers: Liliya Zhernokleyeva
Mailing address (or Department and campus mail code): 7240 Belcamp Street, Rio Linda, CA
95673
1.
(916)335-6518 liljuljka@hotmail.com
Telephone and e-mail address for researcher
May, 2011
Anticipated starting date
Dr. Lisa William-White
Name of faculty sponsor (for student research)
lywwhite@csus.edu
E-mail address of sponsor
Who will participate in this research as subjects (e.g., how many people, from what source,
using what criteria for inclusion or exclusion)? How will you recruit their participation
(e.g., what inducements, if any, will be offered)? How will you avoid any conflict of
interest as a researcher?
95
In this research fifty (11-12 years old) six graders from Community Academy
Outreach Russian-American Charter School will participate in the Language Use
and Attitude Survey. There will be no criteria for exclusion or inclusion; all six
graders may participate if their parents agree to conditions. Students also will be
given a choice to accept or decline the participation. To avoid any conflict of
interest, the survey will be conducted anonymously and questions will not ask for
any personal information and will not have any health risks. Since I am not their
teacher and not an employee of the school there might be some conflicts with use of
learning time wisely with the students that are not participating in the survey. To
avoid this issue, I talked to the principal and vise principal and they agreed to work
with me and pull out all the students from all six grades that are participating in the
survey and let us take the survey in the gym. Once a student finished taken the
survey he/she may go back to class without waiting for their classmates.
2. How will informed consent be obtained from the subjects? Attach a copy of the consent
form you will use. If a signed written consent will not be obtained, explain what you will
do instead and why. (See Appendix C in Policies and Procedures for examples of
consent forms, an example of an assent form for children, and a list of consent form
requirements. Also see the section on Informed Consent in Policies and Procedures.)
To protect students right to privacy all the information will be confidential and
every student will have a choice to participate or not in this survey. Students’
parents will be informed about the survey, the information that will be asked in that
survey, and they will be asked to sign the agreement form or to decline.
3.
How will the subjects’ rights to privacy and safety be protected? (See the section on Level
of Risk in Policies and Procedures. For online surveys, also answer the checklist questions
at the end of Appendix B in Policies and Procedures.)
Parents will be informed through the letter about the survey and will be given a
choice to agree to it or disagree. This survey has no risk for students. They will not
be asked any personal information and there will not be any associated healthrelated risks. The questions that will be asked do not have any personal information
and will be conducted confidentially. Students’ names will not be asked or recorded
in any analysis. See student and parent letters attached.
4.
Summarize the study’s purpose, design, and procedures. (Do not attach lengthy grant
proposals, etc.)
The purpose of this qualitative study is to analyze home language maintenance
among Russian-American children. To do that I will administer the Language Use
and Attitude survey with fifty six graders. First step, parents will have to sign an
agreement form for their child’s participation; second, students will be asked to sign
an agreement form if they would like to participate. After I collect forms from
96
parents and students, to avoid the conflict and make sure that it will go as smooth as
possible, the principal and vise principal offered me to pull out all the students that
will be participating in the survey to the school gym and have them take the survey
at the same time. This will give the students that are not participating in the survey
continue their learning without loosing learning time. I want as less as possible
interference with students so it would not affect their answer choices. I will briefly
introduce myself and explain why I am asking them to take the survey and than I let
them take the survey on their own. I picked six graders so they will be able to read
the entire questions on their own and will need very limited guidance from me. The
survey will take 20-30 minutes and as soon as each student is done with their survey,
they may go back to class and continue their learning. After I collect data, I will
carefully examine every question and try to find some patterns or differences and
see what causing those similarities and differences.
5.
Describe the content of any tests, questionnaires, interviews, etc. in the research. Attach
copies of the questions. What risk of discomfort or harm, if any, is involved in their use?
There is no risk of discomfort or harm in any questions on the survey. The survey
will be conducted confidentially and will contain only the information about
language preferences in every day situations.
6.
Describe any physical procedures in the research. What risk of discomfort or harm, if any,
is involved in their use? (The committee will seek review and recommendation from a
qualified on-campus medical professional for any medical procedures.)
N/A
7.
Describe any equipment or instruments and any drugs or pharmaceuticals that will be used
in the research. What risk of discomfort or harm, if any, is involved in their use? (The
committee will seek review and recommendation from a qualified on-campus medical
professional for the use of any drugs or pharmaceuticals.)
See survey attached
8. Taking all aspects of this research into consideration, do you consider the study to be
“exempt,” “no risk,” “minimal risk,” or “at risk?” Explain why. (See the section on
Level of Risk in Policies and Procedures.)
This study is “No Risk” to any participant. All the questions in the survey do not
contain any personal information or any health-related risks. Questions are
confidential and are only referring to language choices in everyday life situations.
For protocols approved as “at risk”, the researcher is required to file semiannual reports
with the committee that describe the recruiting of subjects, progress on the research, interactions
with the sponsor, and any adverse occurrences or changes in approved procedures. In addition,
97
the committee reserves the right to monitor “at risk” research as it deems appropriate. Failure to
file the required progress reports may result in suspension of approval for the research.
________________________________
Signature of Researcher
____________________
Date
________________________________
Signature of Faculty Sponsor
(for student research)
____________________
Date
Signature of your department or division chair confirms that he or she has had an
opportunity to see your human subjects application.
________________________________
Signature of Department/Division Chair
____________________
Date
Questions about the application procedures for human subjects approval may be directed to
the Office of Research Administration, (916) 278-7565, or to any member of the committee.
Questions about how to minimize risks should be directed to a committee member. Applicants
are encouraged to contact a committee member whose professional field most closely
corresponds to that of the researcher. See www.csus.edu/research/humansubjects/ for a list of
committee members and the current year’s due dates for submitting an application.
98
REFERENCE
Anzaldua, G. (1988). Borderlands: LaFrontera. Aunt Lute, San Francisco.
Baker, C. (1996). Language in society. In C. Baker, Foundations of bilingual education
and bilingualism. Clevedon, England: Multicultural Matters.
Barkhuizen, G. (2006). Immigrant parents' perceptions of their children's language
practices: Afrikaans speakers living in New Zealand. Language Awareness, 15(2),
63-79.
Bialystok, E., (1988). Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness.
Developmental Psychology, Vol 24(4), Jul 1988, 560-567.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural
psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bochner, A. & Ellis, C. (1995). The other side of the fence: Seeing black and white in a
small, southern town. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 147-167.
Buda, J. K., (1991). Language Choice, Reprinted from Otsuma Review, No. 24, 1991
from http://www.f.waseda.jp/buda/texts/language.html
Casta, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilinguals speech production:
Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners.
University of the Basque Country, Barcelona, Spain. Journal of Memory and
Language 50, 491-511.
99
Calderon, M. (1998). Adolescent sons and daughters of immigrants: how schools can
respond. In K. Borman and B. Scheider (Eds.), The adolescent years: social
influences and educational challenges. Chicago, Illinois: The University of
Chicago Press.
Crawford, J. (1996). Stabilizing indigenous languages: Seven hypotheses on language
loss; causes and cures. Paper presented at the Second Symposium on Stabilizing
Indigenous Languages. Retrieved March 7, 2009, from
www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/stabilize/ii-policy/hypotheses.htm
Cromdal, J. (1999). Childhood bilingualism and metalinguistic skills: Analysis and
control in young Swedish–English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, pp 120.
Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Education, (n.d.). Glossary of Education from
http://www.education.com/definition/primary-language/
Fishman, J.A. (1965). Who speaks what language to whom and when? La
Linguistique (2), 67-68
Fishman, J. A. (Ed.). (1966). Language loyalty in the United States. The Hague: Mouton.
Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift. Theoretical and Empirical foundations of
Assistance to threatened languages. Multilingual Matters
Fishman, J. (2006). Do not leave your language alone: The hidden status agendas
within corpus planning in language policy. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
100
hooks, b. (2003). Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. Great Britain: Routledge.
Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Language shift and language revitalization. In R. B. Kaplan
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kasatkina, N. (2009). Analyzing language choice among Russian-speaking immigrants to
the United States, Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Arizona, United States –
Arizona, from Dissertation and Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences
Collection. (Publication No. AAT 3402029).
Kandolf, C. (2009). Citing Website. Myth about Bilingualism. From
http://www.antotranslation.com/materiali-en/myths-about-bilingualism
Kennedy, J. F. (1959). A Nation of Immigrants. Anti-defamation League 1959, 40 pages.
Kitanoff Group (2006). Community Collaborative Charter School, SPICA, Staff Manual,
2011-2012.
Kopeliovich, S. (2009). Citing Website. Reversing Language Shift In The Immigrant
Family. A Case Study of a Russian-speaking Community in Israel. From
https://sites.google.com/site/melamedsite/russian-1/russian-2
Kouzmin, L. (1988). Language use and language maintenance: Two Russian communities in Australia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 72, 5165.
101
Liuykkonen, A. I. (n.d.). Citing Websites. Сохранение русского языка у детей в
условиях иммиграции. Retrieved July 30, 2011, from http://mssolutions.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=85:2010-1128-20-24-03&id=1399:2010-11-28-20-56-40&Itemid=206
Maddi, S. R. (1996). Personality theories: a comparative analysis (6th ed.). Long Grove,
IL: Waveland Press.
McGraw Hill Glencoe (n.d.). Diagnostic tests: Placement tests for Heritage language
learners. Columbus, OH:Author.
Mironov,V.V. (n.d.). Citing Websites. Средства массовой коммуникации как зеркало
поп-культуры, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 2003, from
http://evartist.narod.ru/text12/14.htm#з_02
Nesteruk, O. (2007). Parenting experiences of eastern European of Eastern
immigrant professionals in the US: a qualitative study. Ph.D. dissertation,
Louisiana State University.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant
second generation. Berkley: University of California Press.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). Immigrant America: a portrait. Berkeley :
University of California Press, c1990.
Ricciardelli, L.A. “Creativity and Bilingualism.” Journal of Creative Behavior 26 no. 4
(1992): 242-254.
102
Rumbaut R.G., Massey, D.S., & Bean, F.D. (2006). Linguistic life expectancies:
Immigrant language retention in Southern California. Population and
Development Review, 32(3), 447-460.
Sabatier, C, & Berry, J. (2008). The role of family acculturation, parental style, and
perceived discrimination in the adaptation of second-generation immigrant youth
in France and Canada. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5 (2),
159-185.
Spizarsky Beown, J. (2009). Language Maintenance in Heritage Language Speakers.
Thesis, California State University, Sacramento, Fall 2009.
Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Stake, R. (2010). Qualitative Research: studying how things work. Guilford Press.
Taumov, I. D. (2011). Citing Websites. Сохранение родных языков как социальнолингвистическая проблема. From
http://taumov.ucoz.ru/publ/sokhranenie_rodnykh_jazykov_kak_socialno_lingvisti
cheskaja_problema/1-1-0-1
Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2001). Raising Multilingual Children: Foreign Language
Acquisition and Children. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Valdes, G., & Figueroa, R. (1994) Bilingualism and Testing: A Special Case of Bias
(Second Language Learning) Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
103
Valdes, G. (1996). Forward: Latina/o ethnicities, critical race theory and post-identity
politics in postmodern legal culture: From practices to possibilities. La Raza Law
Journal, 9, 1-31.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watson, N. V. (2006) Negotiating social and academic identities: Russian
immigrant adolescents in the United States. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Colorado at Denver, United States -- Colorado. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from
ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3249865).
Webster, M. (2008), Free Dictionary; Merriam Webster Dictionary, The Oxford Pocket
Dictionary of Current- English 2008.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. New York:
Publications of Linguistic Circle of New York ─ Number 1.
Zentella, A. (2006). Growing Up Bilingual. Puerto Rican Children in New York. UK
Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.
Zhang, D. (2004). Home Language Maintenance Among Second-Generation Chinese
American Children. University of Pennsylvania, United States – Pennsylvania,
Working Paper in Edu cational Linguistics 19/2: 33-53.