Susan Joffe Hadar Abutbol Oz Joel Walters Sharon Armon-Lotem Bar Ilan University

1. American/Russian, Israeli or Both: Language, Identity, and Attitudes among HeritageEnglish and Russian Speaking Preschool Children, Israel Susan Joffe HadarAbutbol Oz Joel Walters Sharon Armon-Lotem Bar Ilan University Sixth Heritage Language Research Institute June 18 - 22, 2012University of California, Los Angeles We gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Heritage Language Research Institute and the Lechter Foundation.

2. Social Factors and Motivation in Heritage Language Maintenance and Second Language Acquisition • Ethnolinguisitic Vitality theory: there is more chance of maintenance when a minority language has high ethnolinguistic vitality, as defined by demographic, economic, political and cultural capital (Landry & Allard 1994). • In a study of students of heritage languages at universities in the United States, survey respondents expressed positive attitudes toward their heritage languages, even as their use of Heritage Languages decreased dramatically upon reaching school age (Carreira & Kagan 2011). • Heritage language learners need strong motivation to maintain their heritage languages (Montrul 2010).

3. Background • 20% of children in the Israeli schools come from immigrant families (Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, 2004). • Immigrant childrens’ encounter with a new language and culture may result in changes to their identities as well.

4. To what extent does L2/Hebrew language proficiency influence ethnolinguistic identity and social preferences? L2/Hebrew language proficiency Ethnolinguistic Identity Social Preferences

5. Does length of exposure (LOE) to Hebrew influence ethnolinguistic identity, social preferences, and Hebrew language proficiency? Exposure to L2/Hebrew L2/Language proficiency Ethnolinguistic Identity Social Preferences

6. Research Hypotheses: LOE • Length of Exposure (LOE) was expected to correlate with higher performance on Hebrew standardized tests for both groups. • Measures of English and Russian syntactic structures were expected to correlate negatively with LOE, i.e. more L2 exposure would lead to lower performance in L1 syntax.

7. Research Hypotheses: Identity • Higher Hebrew proficiency was expected to correlate with stronger Israeli identity and weaker English/American and Russian ethnolinguistic identities.

8. Research Hypotheses: Attitudes and Social Preferences • Higher Hebrew proficiency was expected to correlate with positive attitudes toward the Hebrew language and Hebrew speakers. • Higher Hebrew proficiency was expected to correlate with preferences for Hebrew speakers.

9. Participants 21 L1 English speaking children 78 L1 Russian speaking children 35 boys, 43 girls Mean age – 70 mo Mean length of exposure to Hebrew – 36.85 mo Age of initial exposure to Hebrew – 34.79 months First born – 39 participants Average level of parents’ education – post-high school • 9 boys, 12 girls • Mean age – 61 mo • Mean length of exposure to Hebrew – 30 mo • Age of initial exposure to Hebrew – 26.74 months • First born - 5 • Average level of parents’ education – post-high school

10. Methods Language Assessment Social Identity Assessment Oral interview including: Ethnolinguistic labels Rating of current and future ethnic and ethnolinguistic identities Attitudes to languages and speakers Ethnolinguistic social preferences • English: CELF-Preschool 2 (Wiig, Secord & Semel 1992) • Russian: no standardized instrument • Hebrew: Goralnik Language Screening Test (1995)

11. Social Identity Assessment • “How much do you agree? Show me on the Magic Ladder.” • “I am American/Russian/Israeli/Both” • “I like to be American/Russian/Israeli/Both” • “When I grow up I want to be…” • “At your birthday party, how much do you want to invite friends who speak only Russian/only Hebrew/both?”

12. Social Identity Procedures Magic Ladder Procedure 10 point, 3D vertical rating scale, 12” Numbers hidden from view Warm-up/practice placing a magnetic disk on the ladder in response to questions about likes/dislikes, feelings Use of ladder to assess identity, attitudes, social preferences • ☺ • _ • _ • _ • _ • _ • _ • _ • _ • _ • _ • 

13. Results:LanguageHebrew Language Proficiency (Goralnik (1995) Scores) English-Hebrew Bilinguals: 21% at norm or above 79% below norm Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals: 62 % at norm or above 38% below norm

14. Length of Exposure (LOE) English-Hebrew Bilinguals Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals LOE did correlate with Hebrew language proficiency. As expected, children with more exposure to Hebrew had higher proficiency in Hebrew. • LOE did not correlate with Hebrew language proficiency. Contrary to expectations, children with more exposure to Hebrew did not have higher proficiency in Hebrew.

15. Hebrew language proficiency among Russian-Hebrew bilinguals. LOE to Hebrewcorrelates with higher proficiency in Hebrew. Children needed an average of two years before their scores were within the normal range for monolingual Hebrew-speaking children. Least exposure (10-25 months) Medium exposure (26-46 months) Most exposure (47-75 months)

16. Results: Identity English-Hebrew Bilinguals Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals "Below Norm" children presented a consistent preference for Russian ethnolinguistic identity in both present and future. “At Norm” children presented less consistent but stronger preferences for Israeli identity, which was statistically significant for future oriented identity. • Hebrew language proficiency did not correlate with positive attitudes toward Hebrew and Hebrew speakers. • English-Hebrew bilinguals preferred Israeli or bicultural identities (regardless of LOE or Hebrew proficiency).

17. Results: Ethnic Identity “Who are you?”More children with lower Hebrew proficiency preferred to identify themselves as both Russian and Israeli. More children with higher Hebrew proficiency preferred to identify themselves as Israeli.

18. Russian-Hebrew BilingualsLOE and Ethnic Identity: “Who are you?”Israeli identity correlated with higher proficiency in Hebrew.

19. English-Hebrew Bilinguals: Ethnolinguistic IdentityEH bilinguals saw themselves becoming less American (and more Israeli/bicultural) in the future.

20. English-Hebrew Bilinguals: Future Identity Most English-Hebrew bilinguals want to be Israeli when they grow up.

21. Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals: Ethnolinguistic IdentityBelow norm children preferred Russian identities.At norm children preferred Israeli and Russian identities.

22. Results: Social PreferencesEnglish-Hebrew bilinguals preferred to invite other English speakers or other bilinguals to their birthday parties. Russian-Hebrew bilinguals with lower Hebrew proficiency preferred to invite Russian speakers; those with higher Hebrew proficiency did not prefer Russian or Hebrew speakers. English-Hebrew Bilinguals Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals

23. Summary IProficiency and Identity/Social PreferencesRussian-Hebrew Bilinguals 1. Hebrew language proficiency interacted with ethnolinguistic identity. 2. Higher Hebrew proficiency lead to preferences of Hebrew dominant friends. Hebrew language proficiency Ethnolinguistic Identity Social Preferences

24. Summary II Proficiency and Identity/Social Preferences English-Hebrew bilinguals Hebrew language did not influence ethnolinguistic identity nor social preferences. Hebrew language proficiency Ethnolinguistic Identity Social Preferences

25. Summary III: Length of ExposureRussian-Hebrew Bilinguals Length of exposure influenced Hebrew language proficiency, social preferences, and ethnolinguistic identity. Exposure to Hebrew Hebrew Language Proficiency Ethnolinguistic Identity Social Preferences

26. Summary IV: Length of ExposureEnglish-Hebrew Bilinguals Length of exposure to Hebrew did not influence Hebrew proficiency, ethnolinguistic identity, or social preferences. Exposure to Hebrew Hebrew Language Proficiency Ethnolinguistic Identity Social Preferences

27. Conclusions English-Hebrew Bilinguals Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals Language LOE led to greater Hebrew proficiency. Identity Hebrew proficiency was related to identity. Children with higher proficiency had stronger Israeli identities. Social Preferences Hebrew proficiency was related to social preferences. Children with lower Hebrew proficiency preferred to socialize with other Russian speakers. Children with higher proficiency preferred to socialize with both Russian speakers and Hebrew speakers. • Language • LOE did not lead to greater Hebrew proficiency. • Identity • Children preferred Israeli identity regardless of Hebrew proficiency. • Social Preferences • Hebrew proficiency was not related to social preferences. Children preferred to socialize with other English speakers and with other bilinguals.

28. Acknowledgement • The Hebrew-Russian data collection for this paper was supported by the BMBF funded Consortium “Migration and societal Integration”. Grant No. 01UW0702B.

29. спасибо Thanks! תודה!