Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Acculturation in Turkish Immigrants: Identity, Language and Education Across Generations 3030947955, 9783030947958

Citation preview

Kutlay Yagmur Fons J. R. van de Vijver

Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Acculturation in Turkish Immigrants Identity, Language and Education Across Generations

Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Acculturation in Turkish Immigrants

Kutlay Yagmur · Fons J. R. van de Vijver

Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Acculturation in Turkish Immigrants Identity, Language and Education Across Generations

Kutlay Yagmur Tilburg University, School of Humanities and Digital Sciences Tilburg, Noord-Brabant, The Netherlands

Fons J. R. van de Vijver Tilburg University, School of Humanities and Digital Sciences Tilburg, Noord-Brabant, The Netherlands

ISBN 978-3-030-94795-8 ISBN 978-3-030-94796-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94796-5 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

This book is more than a product of laborious research process for me. It both honours a long-time friendship and serves as a remembrance to an inspiring scholar in cross-cultural psychology, Fons van de Vijver. I taught and conducted research together with Fons van de Vijver at Tilburg University, the Netherlands. He had been an inspiration for me to dive into the ocean of acculturation research. As a sociolinguist, I looked at social life and its problems from a very different angle. I expressed my criticisms over the traditional methodologies used in acculturation research. Being very receptive and reflective, Fons always listened very carefully and appreciated the outlook of a sociolinguist. Realizing the benefits of interdisciplinary research, we both committed ourselves to new research projects on socio-cultural and linguistic adaptation of immigrants in various national contexts. We supervised PhD and post-doctoral projects together. Some of the outcomes of those projects are synthesized in this book. We are grateful to our young researchers for cooperating with us in different projects. Without the wonderful collaboration of Serkan Arikan, Irem Bezcioglu-Goktolga, Gozde Demirel and Tulay Et-Bozkurt, this project has been incomplete. Many books have their own stories. Next to its insightful and rich synthesis, this book has a sad story. Fons and I submitted a panel proposal to biannual Symposium of International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology in Guelph, Canada in 2018. The title of our panel was “Acculturation, Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy Practices of Turkish speakers in Australia, France, Germany and the Netherlands”. The above-mentioned young scholars were part of that panel as well. Before the conference took place, I received an exciting e-mail from Ms. Shinjini Chaterjee of Springer publishing house expressing interest in our panel. As a scholar, you do not always get a mail about your presentation at an international conference. Springer publishing house apparently had a keen interest in the field. Ms. Shinjini Chaterjee reflected on our panel very closely and found the topics highly relevant and innovative for our field of study. She came to our panel and listened to the presentations very carefully. Afterwards, we discussed the possibility of turning the subject matter of this panel into a full-fledged book for a wider readership. Immediately after the Conference, Fons and I worked on our book proposal for the v

vi

Preface

Springer. The proposal was accepted and we chose the deadline as 30 October 2019. In the meanwhile, Fons retired and moved to Queensland, Australia. He continued working on the unfinished Ph.D. projects and a number of paper publications with a number of colleagues. In order to finalize our Book, I took a sabbatical to work on our book uninterruptedly. I Skyped with Fons about the structure and work division of our chapters. We agreed on the deadlines for submitting the individual chapters to each other so that we would deliver our book in time to Springer. It was only after 10 days that we spoke; I got a Skype call from Fons van de Vijver. Because Fons always used to make appointments per e-mail before calling, seeing the unannounced Skype call, I knew something was wrong. When I saw the face of the caller, I panicked. It was Fons’ wife Lona. She told us that Fons passed away on that morning (1st of June 2019). Knowing the healthy lifestyle and perfect condition of my Friend, I could not believe my ears. He had a heavy brain haemorrhage; it was not possible to save him. The sudden loss of our beloved Friend was the cause of an extended period of still-stand in academic life for me. Fons had contributed immensely to the academia. He had published innumerable articles and books. He had supervised many numbers of projects. He had worked very hard all his life. Ten months after his retirement, he lost his life. I found the master plan of life extremely unfair. Regaining my energy and finding inspiration to battle further was difficult. It was impossible to meet the deadline of 30 October because we had not even started our book. We only had the detailed book proposal. I informed Ms. Shinjini Chaterjee of the Springer to ask for a year’s extension. They were very understanding. Springer had a long history of cooperation with Fons van de Vijver. I had to make the decision to write the manuscript on my own and publish it in our names. I owed this last gesture to my dear Friend. We had worked together on a number of joint projects. We had large amount of data to be utilized for this book. Now it was my responsibility to finalize the manuscript to honour my colleague. When all was going fine again, COVID-19 hit all of us. Due to the pandemic, universities locked down. We all had to find new ways of teaching and testing. Many projects were on hold. The psychological uncertainties and new forms of teaching undermined our life and work. I had another serious test case blocking the writing of our manuscript. Yet, the determination to honour my colleague was stronger than all other considerations. We had some excellent data and our joint synthesis had to meet the academia. With this persuasion, I undertook my writing task, the outcome of which is presented in this book. I dedicate this book to my beloved colleague Fons van de Vijver, who inspired many young and senior scholars all around the Globe. Tilburg, The Netherlands

Kutlay Yagmur

Contents

1 Introducing ‘Acculturation and Language in a Multidisciplinary Perspective’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Acculturation Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Educational Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Novelty of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 2 4 5 8 10

2 Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic Characteristics of Turkish Abroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 ‘Guest Workers’ Being Transformed into Immigrants . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 A Brief History of Turkish Immigration to Western Europe . . . . . . 2.4 Demographic Characteristics of Turkish Immigrants . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Turkish Immigrants in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Turkish Immigrants in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 Turkish Immigrants in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4 Turkish Immigrants in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.5 Turkish Immigrants in the United States of America . . . . . 2.5 Cultural and Linguistic Integration of Turkish Immigrants . . . . . . . 2.6 Language Maintenance and Shift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 School Achievement Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Heritage Language Education Models in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 13 13 15 17 17 20 22 23 25 27 28 30 31 32 36

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA, Australia, France, Germany, and The Netherlands: The Impact of Receiving Country Policies on Acculturation Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 How Important Are the Acculturation Orientations of the Host Groups? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 39 40 vii

viii

Contents

3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

Construction of Interethnic Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Language Maintenance and Acculturation Orientations . . . . . . . . . A Widely Researched-Group: Turkish Immigrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changing Cultural Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiculturalism Ideologies in the Five Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.1 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.2 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.3 USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.4 The Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.5 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 Methodological Novelty in Acculturation Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.2 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.3 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11 Turkish Immigrants in the United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12 Turkish Immigrants in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13 Turkish Immigrants in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.14 Turkish Immigrants in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.15 Turkish Immigrants in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.16 Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey of Language, Culture and Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43 46 48 49 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 56 56 57 58 59 59 60 61 63 63 64 67 80

4 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 The Link Between Language Maintenance/Shift and Family Language Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Family Language Policy in Turkish Immigrant Communities . . . . 4.4 Interaction Between Family Language Policy and Language Learning Beliefs of Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Differences in Family Language Policies in Australia and the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Language Beliefs and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Language Use and Home Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 Parental Factors Influencing Language Practices . . . . . . . . . 4.5.4 Availability of Resources for Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.5 Institutional Support Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85 85 87 92 93 95 96 98 100 101 102 103 104

Contents

5 Acculturation and Educational Achievement of Turkish Bilingual Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Acculturation and School Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 National Language Versus Minority Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Educational Systems and Immigrant Incorporation Regimes . . . . . 5.5 Empirical Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Individual-Level Factors in School Achievement Among Immigrant Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 Country-Level Factors in Immigrant School Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 The Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.2 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.3 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.1 Psychometric Properties and Item Bias Analysis . . . . . . . . . 5.7.2 Mapping Cross-Cultural Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.3 Understanding and Explaining Betweenand Within-Country Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8.1 The Complex Role of Language in the Achievement Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Relationship Between First and Second Language Skills of Turkish Bilingual Children: Empirical Evidence from France, Germany and the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 The Rationale of a Cross-National Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 The Relationship Between Heritage Language and Mainstream Language Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Research Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 Psychometric Properties and Exploratory Factor Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 Comparison of the Turkish and Mainstream Language Mainstream Language Scores on PIRLS and PISA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.3 Path Analysis Linking Acculturation and Language to Educational Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Discussion and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

109 109 110 112 113 115 115 115 116 117 117 119 120 120 120 123 125 127 128

133 133 134 135 139 139 140 141

142 145 148 151

x

Contents

7 Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Comparative Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Evaluation of Acculturation Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Educational Achievement and Acculturation Orientations . . . . . . . 7.4 Boundary De-Construction Instead of Boundary Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

153 153 154 157 158 161

Chapter 1

Introducing ‘Acculturation and Language in a Multidisciplinary Perspective’

This book presents a synthesis of findings from a number of different research projects on language maintenance and shift, acculturation orientations, family language policy, school achievement and bilingualism in Turkish speaking communities in different immigration contexts. By using empirical evidence in five immigration countries, the impact of assimilation, integration and diversity policies on Turkish immigrants’ acculturation orientations are discussed. Language maintenance and shift constitute the overall conceptual framework of the book. Michael Clyne’s (1991, 2003) and Joshua Fishman’s (1991) extensive work on language maintenance and shift in immigrant and indigenous communities have shown that the family is a crucial site of language maintenance. When the parents and the overall language community consider heritage language as a core value (Smolicz, 1981), language maintenance is more sustainable. The family remains for most immigrant groups and their younger generations the main domain for heritage language use and development (Pauwels, 2005). Given the importance of family language practices, parental choices and strategies in language maintenance receive extensive attention in this Book. Parental choices have an impact on language development of immigrant children. Some parents choose not to transmit their heritage language to younger generations; while other parents prefer bilingual upbringing, which has implications for the school achievement of children from an immigration heritage. Traditional approaches to language maintenance/shift and acculturation focus on the ethnic group as the object of language contact research. Ethnic groups consist of individuals with different social, cultural, educational and linguistic characteristics. Members of ethnic groups are also the members of the mainstream community. For instance, a Turkish-Dutch speaking bilingual person is connected with both Turkish and Dutch communities. The sense of belonging and self-identification of every Turkish-Dutch bilingual might be different from each other. Individuals construct their identities in interaction with others. A first-generation Turkish speaker usually has less skills in Dutch and better skills in Turkish, which inevitably leads him/her to connect more with Turkish speakers in the immigration context. This does not mean

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 K. Yagmur and F. J. R. van de Vijver, Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Acculturation in Turkish Immigrants, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94796-5_1

1

2

1 Introducing ‘Acculturation and Language …

that his/her acculturation orientations are less positive regarding the Dutch culture and society. Language use and acculturation cannot be effectively examined in the absence of contextual circumstances. Linguistic practices and sociocultural integration of individuals need to be investigated in connection with their relationship to their families, ethnic communities and to the mainstream community. Instead of presenting the findings of isolated studies on a single aspect of language maintenance or acculturation, this book presents the synthesis derived from multiple studies on the same community in various immigration contexts.

1.1 Acculturation Framework Acculturation studies incorporate new methodological approaches in researching language maintenance and shift of immigrant minority languages. This book deals with identity, language and acculturation by combining psychological, sociolinguistic and ethnographic perspectives by providing a multidisciplinary perspective on Turkish immigrants living in Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States of America. The primary focus is on the European and Australian context. In order to show the relationship between receiving society policies and immigrant group characteristics, a profile of Turkish immigrant communities abroad is presented in Chap. 2. After an overview of the dominant theoretical acculturation and sociolinguistic models in the field (Chap. 3), the subsequent chapters describe recent qualitative and quantitative studies on this topic and draws on decades of research by the authors. We explore differences and similarities in acculturation of Turkish speakers across mentioned countries and link the differences to contextual characteristics, such as community characteristics, immigration climate and education. In researching socio-cultural and linguistic integration of immigrants, crosscultural psychologists use acculturation framework; whereas, sociolinguists use language maintenance and shift framework. The focus of acculturation research is basically psychological characteristics of immigrant individuals who are experiencing acculturation. This is not to simplify a very complex field of study. Over the years, acculturation studies diversified tremendously. As discussed by Van de Vijver et al. (2016) the diversification of the field has added to the complexity of the issues in acculturation research. In this book, we exemplify the complexity by reflecting on the factors impinging upon socio-cultural, psychological and linguistic integration of Turkish speakers in multiple countries by using evidence from the conceptual framework of language maintenance and shift (Edwards, 1992; Fishman, 1991). We approach language maintenance and acculturation issues from an interdisciplinary perspective, drawing primarily on sociolinguistics but also on related disciplines such as education, psychology, and sociology. We take a critical stand in examining the factors involved in socio-cultural adaptation of immigrants to their new cultural contexts. Linguistic and cultural contacts

1.1 Acculturation Framework

3

result in complex socio-cultural changes in the immigrants and mainstream individuals who are in contact with the ‘newcomers’. Multi-layered and highly complex nature of cultural adaptation requires multiplicity of factors be taken into consideration. In order to investigate long-term adaptations of immigrants, individual psychological factors and the cultural group level factors need to be examined. In other words, factors involved in acculturation conditions, orientations and outcomes should be investigated interdependently. Berry (1997) suggests four possible acculturation outcomes of immigrant adaptation. Bringing these complex social and cultural adaptation processes down to four types of responses as assimilation, integration, separation and marginalization would be too narrow and limiting. Even if we ignore the complexity of cultural contact processes and accept ‘culture’ as a homogenous entity, applying Berry’s model to different generations of immigrants would be problematic. Individuals are socialized in different ways but cultural upbringing is not only confined to the family. When an individual is growing up, there are multiple factors that affect the socialisation and cultural forming of that individual. Neighbours, friends, family members, peer groups at school or in sport clubs, teachers, school textbooks, the media and so on have a considerable impact on an individual’s socialization. Considering the cultural habits, there are multiple agents that transmit the norms and values of the larger collective entity to the individual. Young people with an immigration heritage born in the country of immigration are exposed to these different agents and institutions. In many cases, the so-called second-generation speaks the mainstream language much better than their parents’ heritage language and socio-culturally they function much better in the immigration context compared to their parents’ heritage country. Nevertheless, irrespective of their socio-cultural competence and linguistic skills in the host language and culture, researchers employ Berry’s (1997) acculturation model in investigating acculturation of the second- and subsequent generations. As shown by research, the cultural orientations and acculturation processes of first and second generations differ considerably (see for instance, Yagmur, 2016). It is much easier for the second-generation immigrants to learn the societal language than their parents do. Because they attend mainstream schools and socialize with mainstream peers, they are more exposed to the host culture and their norms and values are more similar to the host group (Birman, 2006). Most research on acculturation is based on rigid categories of group membership. The researchers have deeply entrenched views on mainstream identity, national belonging, language use, ancestry, kinship, religion, and ethnicity (Rudmin et al., 2017). Some researchers hold on to the idea of bounded ethnic communities and fixed categories of belonging and identity. As shown by Wimmer (2009), the sociocultural reality of super diverse societies challenges narrow ideas of belonging and ethnic identification. Individuals construct their identities in interaction with relevant others in their social networks. Depending on the contextual circumstances and the individuals they interact with, they develop their communicative strategies. Based on four simple questions on language skills (e.g., How well do you understand languages X and Y ? or How well do you read languages X and Y ?), some acculturation researchers make huge over-generalisations (see, for instance, Vedder & Virta, 2005) over the linguistic integration of young people with an immigration heritage. Most

4

1 Introducing ‘Acculturation and Language …

research ignores the dynamic nature of language use and identity construction, which are influenced by contextual factors. ‘Ethnic minorities’ are treated as fixed categories in space and time. The complex nature of language use and ethnic identification are ignored. State ideologies, institutional practices and acculturation orientations in the mainstream society impose and maintain hardened group boundaries. Sociolinguistics deals with practices surrounding language use, choice and attitudes. Language maintenance and shift received increased attention from sociolinguists. Traditionally, cross-cultural psychologists deal with acculturation and cultural change but the limited focus on language in the process of cultural adaption has been a major limitation of acculturation studies. Even though the language of a group carries its cultural values and displays social practices, it receives very little attention in acculturation studies. Keeping in mind the limitations of existing acculturation models, especially regarding language use, choice and attitudes, there is extensive focus on language use and choice of Turkish immigrants across generations in multiple national contexts in this Volume. By means of large scale and in-depth studies on language practices and acculturation orientations of Turkish immigrants in five different countries, the readers are presented with a coherent synthesis reflecting various conceptual dimensions in this book. Based on a cross-national study on language maintenance and acculturation orientations of Turkish speakers, a critical examination of sociocultural adaptation of first and second-generation Turkish immigrants are documented. The cross-national and cross-sectional design of this large-scale study gives the opportunity to examine the impact of receiving society integration ideologies on acculturation orientations of immigrant groups. Chapter 3 presents the synthesis of acculturation orientations of Turkish speakers in the larger framework of interactive acculturation theory (Bourhis et al., 1997) and language maintenance/shift.

1.2 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy Traditionally, language maintenance and shift studies examine the ongoing language change in groups; while acculturation focuses on the cultural and psychological changes taking place in individuals and in groups. Especially when we reflect on the group dynamics, intergroup relations and language use, it is inevitable that we focus on both dimensions. Sociolinguistic studies have examined the linguistic consequences of immigration. Language maintenance or shift emerges because of language contact. The type of interaction between the majority and minority language speakers influences the linguistic outcome. There are a number of models in the sociolinguistic literature for the investigation of language maintenance and shift as documented by Clyne (1991). Models developed by Edwards (1992), Giles et al. (1977), and Smolicz (1981), identify various factors that are important in language maintenance (or shift). Kipp et al. (1995) divided these factors into two related categories as factors affecting a speech community and factors affecting individuals within a speech community. Group factors include the size and distribution of an ethnic group, the policy of the

1.2 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy

5

host community towards minority languages, the position of the language within the cultural value system of the group, and the proximity or distance of the minority language to or from the majority language. Birthplace, age, period of residence, gender, education, marriage patterns, prior knowledge of majority language, reason for migration, and language variety are considered to be individual factors (Kipp et al., 1995, p. 123). We might add factors at the individual level such as language choice and socialisation patterns, the interaction of which varies quite fundamentally across linguistic contexts. Different speech communities or individuals can behave in different ways under similar circumstances. Language use, choice, preference and language attitudes are part of the language maintenance and shift framework. However, given the increased focus on the immigrant families and their language practices in the home and related domains, Family Language Policy (FLP) emerged as flourishing field of study. Research on FLP has gone through a number of phases in the last two decades (Lanza & Gomes, 2020) from a focus on language acquisition of children to a more sociolinguistic focus on conditions of language socialisation. Most FLP studies focused on the heritage language transmission practices of minority speakers. Parental strategies in transmitting their heritage language to younger generations is important for bilingual language acquisition, for schooling, for ethnic identification and so forth. Research on family language policy addresses a multitude of factors ranging from language acquisition, parental language ideologies, identity construction to language practices and management. Based on research evidence derived from two diverse national contexts (Australia and the Netherlands), family language policy practices and strategies of bilingual Turkish parents are critically examined in Chap. 4.

1.3 Educational Achievement The relationship between school achievement and acculturation orientations has been investigated extensively in the European context. Most recently Phalet and Baysu (2020) documented widening achievement gaps between majority and minority youth by comparing the school careers of local-born Turkish and Moroccan minorities and the mainstream youth in seven European cities. Based on a comprehensive review of multiple studies, Phalet and Baysu reported that “across multiple data sources and intergroup settings discrimination experiences were revealed to be chronic sources of identity threat undermining minority inclusion and success” (2020, p. 17). As shown by earlier research, the school environment seriously impacts academic success or failure of students from an immigration heritage (Schachner et al., 2018). Schools that pay attention to the inclusion of minority students are more conducive to school success of pupils from a minority group. Nevertheless, school achievement is a complex and multi-layered topic. Lower school achievement among immigrant minority children is a serious problem in most European countries. Factors leading to underachievement at school are multifaceted and interrelated. In the literature on bilingualism and school success, individual

6

1 Introducing ‘Acculturation and Language …

characteristics such as cognitive skills, motivation and so forth of minority students are shown to be one of the most influential on school failure. In restrictive school environments, where mother tongues of minority children are ignored or prohibited, cognitive skills of immigrant minority students do not develop sufficiently compared to mainstream children. If a child’s home language is undervalued or banned on the school ground, identity development might also be hampered. As a result, lower self-esteem among minority students might lead to lower school achievement. Due to segregated schools, there is insufficient exposure to the majority language which might in turn lead to inadequate proficiency in the mainstream language. It is also common knowledge that there are gaps between home and school culture due to different socialization patterns, which might also have an effect on school achievement of immigrant children. Most first-generation immigrant parents are known to be less proficient in the mainstream language, which leads to restrictions in parental involvement. If schools want to improve school achievement of immigrant children, old-fashioned submersion models need to be dropped. By employing teachers and support personnel from linguistic minority backgrounds schools could support first and second language development of immigrant children. The development of first language skills of immigrant children have been underestimated in many immigration countries. Comparison of immigrant and mainstream students showed large differences but which factors lead to such outcomes has not been researched in any detail. The majority of studies on educational inequalities take a rather static approach by focusing on educational outcomes at one point in time rather than analysing the school career as a whole (Baysu & de Valk, 2012). PISA results of European nation-states caused intensive discussions regarding the share of immigrant children in low national scores of Austria and Germany. As reported by McNamara (2011, p. 437) “The PISA reports explicitly link the “poor” national performance of Austria to the presence of minority language students and constructs the multilingualism of immigrant students as a problem requiring remediation.” German and Austrian policy makers complained the most about the influence of immigrant pupils for lowering the national scores; however, these countries have highly stratified school systems, which is detrimental to immigrant children’s school achievement. The term stratification refers to the degree to which educational systems have clearly differentiated types of schools whose curricula are defined as ‘higher’ or ‘lower’. One typical feature of highly stratified school systems is early tracking; i.e., separating pupils into different school tracks (Griga & Hadjar, 2014). By examining immigrant students’ access rates to higher education institutions in countries with high and low stratified school systems, Griga and Hadjar (2014) concluded that a highly stratified secondary school system—as it is prevalent in many conservative immigration regimes (e.g., Austria, Germany)—reduces immigrant students’ chances of attaining a higher education degree. There are multiple reasons for lower school achievement among immigrant children such as skills in the national language, socioeconomic status of parents, educational qualifications of the parents, school environment, lack of bilingual support systems in the schools and so forth. Based on our earlier research, we aim at documenting the complicated nature of school achievement by analysing the data from different sources in this book. PISA

1.3 Educational Achievement

7

results are simply the outcomes of a very complicated schooling process. Language is at the basis of all types of learning. If immigrant children cannot achieve a certain level in the societal language, they are most likely to perform much less compared to mainstream students. As shown by many linguistic studies, there is a close correlation between second and first language skills of immigrants. If the first language skills are underdeveloped, the skills in L2 are similarly underdeveloped (Leseman, 2000; Verhoeven, 1994). In order to show this complicated relationship between L1 and L2 skills, we include Turkish speakers both from different immigration countries as well as from Turkey. Turkish speakers growing up in Turkey are mostly monolingual. They grow up in an environment where Turkish is the dominant societal language. However, immigrant children grow up in submersion environments where another language is the dominant societal language. They learn mainstream language as a second language. In order to see the effect of first and second language environments on Turkish speakers, available informants from PISA 2009 and 2012 samples are included in our analyses. As discussed in Chap. 5 and also Chap. 6, school achievement of immigrant children is a very complex topic. In Chap. 5, we discuss the role of language in school achievement by using PISA reading and mathematics scores of Turkish immigrants in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and Netherlands. In the same chapter, we examine the role of bias and various measures related to immigrant integration policies of the host societies. Our multilevel analyses for reading and mathematics tests demonstrated that at individual level, students with higher scores on an index of economic, social, and cultural status obtained higher achievement scores. At country level, Migrant Integration Index (MIPEX) scores of education, general integration, and anti-discrimination measures of participating countries could predict differences in reading results but not in mathematics. We argue that this marked difference could be due to language factors, notably the lack of effective bilingual skills. We search for the link between first and second language skills to show its impact on school achievement. As documented in Chap. 6, lower skills in the first language lead to lower skills in the societal language. By using empirical evidence derived from a bilingual test of reading in Dutch-Turkish, French-Turkish and German-Turkish from 10 years-old (N = 598) and 15 years-old (N = 518) Turkish immigrant children growing up in the Netherlands, France and Germany, Chap. 6 discusses the claimed link between first and second language skills of Turkish bilingual children. By using international testing programs, PIRLS & PISA tests, we tested the reading proficiency of 10 and 15 years-old Turkish immigrant children. The linguistic interdependence hypothesis of Jim Cummins (1979) is tested for the first time in these countries in two different age groups with students from a Turkish immigrant heritage. The findings partially support Cummins’ hypothesis, that the level of the second language competence of a bilingual child is indeed partially a function of the type of competence the child has already developed in the first language. However, given the huge diversity in linguistic profiles of immigrant children, over-generalizations should be avoided. As shown in Chap. 6, significant differences between the national contexts show the possible effects of integration policies on the cognitive outcomes of acculturation.

8

1 Introducing ‘Acculturation and Language …

1.4 Novelty of This Book We live in a globalized world in which population movements is a fact of life. When people leave their ancestral country and decide to (or have to) live in a new country, they have to learn a new language, adapt to a new culture, learn new norms of behaviour and ways of thinking or adjust to a new climate, all of which requires fundamental changes. This process is a very complex and a multi-layered one. It is not only about wanting to learn a new language and a culture. It is mostly about change and adaptation. We cannot bring this complex process down to ‘willingness to integrate’ and/or to ‘maintain the heritage language and culture’. When we try to explain this complex process by linear conceptual models, we fail to understand the most important issues and end up simplifying them. Acculturation studies try to understand the psychological adaptation of immigrants in their new cultural contexts. Mostly on the basis of some survey questionnaires, responses of individual immigrants (or their descendants) are recorded and analysed. Responses to surveys are usually known as snapshots at a given moment in time. They give us valuable information but sometimes we fail to capture the intricacy of the matter. Intergroup relations, outcomes of language and cultural contact are complex matters. By relying only on survey questionnaires, we might not be able to document the complexity of the acculturation process. We can sketch the overall picture as we do in Chap. 3 in this book but we need more detailed approaches to bring forward the intricate and complicated underlying factors. Responses given to a survey questionnaire on ethnic identification, cultural behaviour and language use statements by using 5- or 7-point Likert scales gives us an average numerical value on our hypothetical scales. Having such numerical values is of course important. This is not to underestimate quantitative research methodologies. As we spent a lifetime working with quantitative methodologies, this is not to criticize our own approach. On the contrary, we simply want to point out that we need to have multiple methodological approaches and instruments to uncover highly complex societal matters and relationships. In writing this Volume, we made use of multiple studies to document the complexity and multidimensionality of linguistic and cultural contact. Integration process of immigrant populations need to be examined from different angles. Earliest definitions of acculturation bring forward the mutual change taking place both in the host and the immigrant groups. In this respect, it is essential to reflect on acculturation attitudes and orientations of the host society members regarding the cultural adaptation of the new groups. If the majority of the host society members refuses to interact with the newcomers, all the efforts of the individuals, who try to be part of the host cultural group, might fail. By documenting acculturation orientations of both the host and the immigrant group, we might understand the actual dynamics of acculturation. Social interactions do not take place in a social vacuum. Historically shaped beliefs and opinions regarding certain groups would not change overnight. If there are solid negative stereotypes surrounding an ethnic or religious group, members who are seen as part of that ‘stigmatized’ group would take their share of stereotypical attributions in their social interactions. Irrespective of their high educational or

1.4 Novelty of This Book

9

professional qualifications, they might simply be seen as a member of that ‘stigmatized group’. In this respect, understanding the social processes and the discourse used in the society regarding diversity and cultural contact can be very helpful. In order to do that, we simply need to conduct research in actual places of intergroup contact, such as schools, classrooms, and other institutions. Teachers and schools are crucial agencies of acculturation. Immigrant parents meet the new institutional culture in the schools of their children. For the educational achievement and language learning of immigrant children, schools and especially teachers are crucial actors. The success of acculturation process of immigrant children mostly depends on their schooling experiences. If the school is an inclusive environment, their academic learning experiences would be highly beneficial. If the school poses threats to the inclusion of children from minority backgrounds, their academic and social development might be faced with serious risks (Phalet & Baysu, 2020). In order to understand the factors affecting acculturation process of immigrant students, evidence from two large-scale studies is discussed in this Book (Chaps. 5 and 6). Immigrant children grow up in their family homes and they are mostly raised in two languages and in two cultures. The majority of Turkish immigrant children learn Turkish from their parents. Because we have second- and third-generation parental generations, children growing up in these homes are mostly bilingual and bicultural. As recently documented, most Turkish heritage children growing up in the immigration context has much higher skills in the national language than their parental heritage language (Bezcioglu-Göktolga & Yagmur, 2018; Demirel, 2019). The media discourse claiming heritage language being a barrier before the acquisition of Dutch or German is mostly unfounded. This book presents solid evidence on the relationship between heritage language and national language skills of immigrant children in Chaps. 5 and 6. Parents are the most important agents in the socialization and language acquisition of children. If the parents transmit their heritage language to younger generations, the children growing up in these families would be bilingual. If immigrant parents decide not to teach their children their heritage language, the children would grow up with only the societal language. There is no single uniform approach in immigrant families. The complexity in parental attitudes and beliefs is visible in parental language practices. Some parents decide using only the national language in their interaction with their children, while some others choose a bilingual approach. Whether parents decide to raise their children monolingually or bilingually has implications for the acculturation process of children growing up in those immigrant homes. Based on the synthesis of two different studies on family language policies of Turkish immigrants in Australia and in the Netherlands, Chap. 4 documents the factors influencing parental choices. By reflecting on multiple contexts and factors, this Volume presents a balanced synthesis of research evidence using acculturation data (Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the USA), language maintenance and shift framework, family language policies (Australia and the Netherlands) and educational outcomes of Turkish immigrant children growing up in major European immigration countries, (France, Germany, and the Netherlands). The comparative evidence presented in this

10

1 Introducing ‘Acculturation and Language …

Book provides a much deeper insight into complexities of acculturation process of one immigrant group in multiple national contexts.

References Baysu, G., & Valk, de H. (2012). Navigating the school system in Sweden, Belgium, Austria and Germany: School segregation and second-generation school trajectories. Ethnicities, 12(6) 776–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796812450857 Bezcioglu-Göktolga, I., & Yagmur, K. (2018). The impact of Dutch teachers on family language policy of Turkish immigrant parents. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 31(3), 220–234. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1504392 Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–34. Birman, D. (2006). Measurement of the ‘acculturation gap’ in immigrant families and implications for parent-child relationships. In M. H. Bornstein & L. R. Cote (Eds.), Acculturation and parentchild relationships: Measurement and development. Erlbaum. Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386. Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of language contact: English and immigrant languages. Cambridge University Press. Clyne, M. (1991). Community languages: The Australian experience. Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251. Demirel, G. (2019). Reading proficiency and acculturation orientations of Turkish bilingual students in the Netherlands, Germany and France. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Tilburg University, the Netherlands. Edwards, J. (1992). Sociopolitical aspects of language maintenance and loss. In W. Fase, K. Jaspaert, & S. Kroon (Eds.), Maintenance and loss of minority languages (pp. 37–54). John Benjamins. Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages (Vol. 76). Multilingual Matters. Giles, H., Bourhis, Y. R., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations (pp. 307–344). Academic Press. Griga, D., & Hadjar, A. (2014) Migrant background and higher education participation in Europe: The effect of the educational systems. European Sociological Review, 30, 275–286. Kipp, S., Clyne, M., & Pauwels, A. (1995). Immigration and Australia’s language resources. AGPS. Lanza, E., & Gomes, R. L. (2020). Family language policy: Foundations, theoretical perspectives and critical approaches. In A. C. Schalley, & A. S. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook of home language maintenance and development: Social and affective factors (pp 153–173). Walter de Gruyter GmbH Leseman, P. P. M. (2000). Bilingual vocabulary development of Turkish preschoolers in the Netherlands. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(2), 93–112. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01434630008666396 McNamara, T. (2011). Multilingualism in education: A poststructuralist critique. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 339–478. Pauwels, A. (2005). Maintaining the community language in Australia: Challenges and roles for families. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(2–3), 124–131. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13670050508668601

References

11

Phalet, K., & Baysu, G. (2020). Fitting in: How the intergroup context shapes minority acculturation and achievement. European Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10463283.2020.1711627 Rudmin, F., Wang, B., & de Castro, J. (2017). Acculturation research critiques and alternative research designs. In S. J. Schwartz & J. B. Unger (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of acculturation and health (pp. 75–95). Oxford University Press. Schachner, M. K., Juang, L. P., Moffit, U., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2018). Schools as acculturation and developmental contexts for youth of immigrant and refugee background. European Psychologist, 23, 44–56. Smolicz, J. J. (1981). Core values and cultural identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4, 75–90. Van de Vijver, F., Berry, J., & Celenk, O. (2016). Assessment of acculturation. In D. Sam & J. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 93–112). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316219218.007 Vedder, P., & Virta, E. (2005). Language, ethnic identity, and the adaptation of Turkish immigrant youth in the Netherlands and Sweden. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 317– 337. Verhoeven, L. (1994). Transfer in bilingual development: The linguistic interdependence hypothesis revisited. Language Learning, 44, 381–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01112.x Wimmer, A. (2009). Herder’s heritage and the boundary-making approach: Studying ethnicity in immigrant societies. Sociological Theory, 27(3), 244–270. Yagmur, K. (2016). Intergenerational language use and acculturation of Turkish speakers in four immigration contexts. Peter Lang.

Chapter 2

Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic Characteristics of Turkish Abroad

2.1 Introduction In order to provide detailed background information about Turkish immigrants abroad, a detailed socio-historical profile of the group is presented in this Chapter. In order to make sense of the experiences of Turkish immigrants, this chapter is important. The aim is contextualizing the topic for a better understanding of the issues facing Turkish immigrants in the immigration context. In this respect, a number of social, cultural and linguistic topics are discussed. After a brief section on the history of Turkish immigration to Europe, the spread of Turkish immigrants in major destination countries are discussed in the section on demography. Prevalent societal and scientific research issues will receive attention in the sections on cultural adaptation and linguistic change; language maintenance, shift and loss; educational linguistics and school achievement; aspects of multilingualism among Turkish immigrants; family language policy; and return migration issues. Based on an extensive literature review and on some of our own work on Turkish communities in various national contexts, integration patterns and acculturation orientations of Turkish immigrants are globally discussed in this Chapter.

2.2 ‘Guest Workers’ Being Transformed into Immigrants In the new era of globalization, people, goods and services as well as ideas move much more freely all around the globe. Traditional forms of workforce migration have almost ended. Labour recruitment agreements with developing countries came to a halt long time ago. In 1950’s and 60’s major European industrial powers such as Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands set up labour recruitment agreements for attracting “guest workers”. Over time, most of those ‘guest workers’ have been turned into permanent settlers in their ‘new’ countries. In the beginning, none of the immigrant receiving countries was worried about the linguistic skills in the © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 K. Yagmur and F. J. R. van de Vijver, Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Acculturation in Turkish Immigrants, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94796-5_2

13

14

2 Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic …

national language of the host, religious orientations of the newcomers, or the cultural habits and integration of the guest workers. They were all going to go back to their countries of origin, anyway. For competitive production and high profits, cheap and efficient labour was the only concern for employers. In 1960’s, many thousands of male workers from Turkey were recruited in Austrian, Belgian, Dutch, French, German, and Swedish factories, mines and plants. Many thousands of young males were transported with trains from Istanbul to various urban centres in Europe (See Picture 2.1). Many labour recruitment offices were opened in major cities in Ankara, Izmir and Istanbul. Thousands of qualified and unqualified workers applied to these offices. The workers were selected after thorough medical examinations. Only after going through some strict medical examinations, the candidates were recruited by European employers. In many cases, those who did not qualify for German companies went to other European countries as tourists and found employment in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. When the guest workers arrived in Germany, they were accommodated in dormitories (Heims), where four or five workers together shared a room (See Picture 2.2). They used the same room as bedroom, living room, kitchen and dining room. The academic literature on these early experiences is highly limited but a number of films and good novels are available. The first Turkish immigrants were given the heaviest duties that no local labourers wanted to do due to low wages and unfavourable conditions. Many coalmines in Belgium and Germany employed Turkish immigrants (See Picture 2.3). The guest workers were all young males. They had come with dreams and ambitions. They were going to save money and were going to return to their homeland to realize their dreams. These ambitions were not extra ordinary. In many cases, it was a tractor and a piece of land that they can live on. Until the 1973 economic crisis in Europe, all went very well. Migrant receiving countries were all happy because production was very high, and their economies were flourishing. The sending country Turkey was very happy because huge amount of foreign capital was returning, and it was crucial for solving the budget deficits. The local real estate market was booming with the new demand from the guest workers. Guest workers started bringing in their families. Before that, they had been staying in dormitories for workers. After family unification, they demanded new housing from host governments. Children had to attend schools, which required languagelearning classes to begin with. Monolingual curriculums of the receiving societies were seriously challenged with the arrival of large numbers of immigrant children. Over time, many social, cultural, linguistic, economic and religious issues emerged (See Picture 2.4). Social and linguistic integration have become the major areas of concern both for the public and for the governments. In time, most immigrants turned into their own ethnic groups for social and cultural solidarity. Even the immigrants who had not been religious before immigration became religious over time. They set up their mosques and started providing religious education to their children (See Picture 2.5).

2.2 ‘Guest Workers’ Being Transformed into Immigrants

15

The media always highlighted the problems. Immigrant groups were almost always associated with problems of poverty, underachievement in schools, social and cultural problems, as well as lack of integration into the society of residence. There are now the third and fourth generation of immigrants, but they still are associated with similar problems and issues. There have of course been very many positive developments as well. With the arrival of many immigrants, new sectors of work were created for local job markets. In the municipal and ministerial departments of immigration, in social welfare, in corrective services and especially in education, new jobs were created. A number of academic disciplines found ‘gold mines’ in terms of topics of investigation. At many European universities, new departments were established specializing on immigration, cross-cultural psychology, sociology, languages and minorities and so on. Language acquisition, educational processes and outcomes, and policymaking are only some of the fields of work. The Turkish group is the largest immigrant minority in the European context and many academic theses, dissertations and papers were written on this group.

2.3 A Brief History of Turkish Immigration to Western Europe Europeans’ encounter with Turkish speaking people is not recent. Turkish presence in Europe extends back to the 15th Century. Historical links between the Ottoman Empire and European major powers were not always positive. Many wars and conflicts left their marks on the collective sub-consciousness of Europeans regarding Turks, which is not always positive. By not participating in the Second World War, the determination to be peaceful was proven to the world. However, the disastrous consequences of the Second WW also hit Turkey economically. Keeping a large army consisting of young men power during the 2nd WW, affected economic growth and production seriously. Many businesses and plants shut down and economic recession caused high rates of unemployment. Meanwhile shortages of labour in Europe meant new opportunities for a new life for many unemployed Turkish young men. Following the period after the Second World War, some Western European countries had shortage of manual labour due to various economic and demographic factors. In order to meet the deficient supply of their labour force, they started recruiting workers from relatively less-developed Southern European countries, such as Italy, (ex-)Yugoslavia, Greece, Spain, and Portugal. There was general labour shortage and vacant positions had to be filled in to maintain the planned speed of production. Bringing workers from other countries kept the wages and prices low, which kept the rate of inflation under control. Especially closing of the East German border meant fewer workers there, but many jobs in West Germany. Since it was not possible to recruit workers from Southern European countries anymore, Germany had to find a solution for workforce shortage. According to Abadan-Unat (1976), due to historical

16

2 Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic …

links between Ottoman Empire and Germany, Germans were willing to cooperate with Turkey because of geographical nearness and excessive labour force of Turkey. In addition, strengthening the Southern edge of NATO by means of employing Turkish workers was another reason for choosing Turkish workers. From a social economy point of view, the fact that most Turks were reputed for their highly praised military qualities (discipline, modesty, willingness to adjustment and easy manipulation) played a certain role for an inclination towards Turkish workers. In those times, no social or political groups in Germany were concerned with the fact that Turks come from a very different social, linguistic, cultural and religious background. From the Turkish government’s perspective, sending large numbers of unemployed people to other countries meant social and economic relief but also social and educational problems. Especially in the 1960s’, foreign money was needed for investment and economic growth. Turkish governments had a lot of difficulty finding international loans. Turkey joined the labour exporting countries at a rather later stage during the 1960’s. Unlike many other European immigrant workers, Turkish workforce migration was a highly planned one. There were bilateral agreements between Western European and Turkish governments. From the beginning, migrant worker receiving countries made it clear that these workers were to be employed for some undefined period and they were subject to bilateral agreements between the governments. Recruitment agreements were signed with Germany in 1961, with the Netherlands, Belgium, and Austria in 1964, with France in 1965 and with Sweden in 1967. Accommodation, working hours, rights and responsibilities, and selection procedures of these workers were arranged between the governments of immigrant receiving countries and the Turkish government. In the early years of immigration, mostly men labourers went to West European countries leaving their families and children. In 1973, many European countries stopped employing workers from other countries due to the economic crisis. It was expected that many Turks would return to their country of origin, however, with the law of family reunification in 1974, Turkish migration to Europe entered into a new phase. German Workers Unions demanded the full integration of foreign workers into German society. Adequate and decent housing facilities were created. Employers had to pay for vocational training and language education. Discriminatory laws of Aliens Act were partly changed. Most important of all, workers were allowed to bring in their families. These changes were of course made on humanistic grounds but when the families arrived, existing problems increased in size and extent. Adequate housing facilities, special educational programs for immigrant children, bilingual services for health and social needs of Turkish families were called for. Some of these problems were taken seriously, but in most cases, the dominant attitude was denial. Presuming that these immigrants were ‘guest-workers’ and one day they would have to leave, West European governments did not take any serious measures. Most of the Turkish immigrants were left on their own; they mostly received help and guidance from each other. In this period, language problems played a serious role in the settlement process. Education of children also turned out to be a major concern area. However, with the emergence of Turkish community welfare organisations, religious services and Turkish language

2.3 A Brief History of Turkish Immigration to Western Europe

17

schools, a stronger social network among Turkish immigrants was established. In spite of all the difficulties of immigration, cultural and linguistic differences with the receiving societies, Turkish immigrants seem to have successfully settled in many West European countries. According to Spolsky (2016) migrant receiving European governments often considered the migrants as guest workers with a temporary status. However, after sixty years of migration history, many migrant groups call themselves diaspora communities implicating permanence in the host countries. Spolsky identifies Turkish immigrants as one of those well settled diaspora communities. The term ‘diaspora’ has political implications. Nowadays, it is customary to talk about West European Turks. The initial ambitions and future-plans of Turkish immigrants have changed with emerging second- and third generations.

2.4 Demographic Characteristics of Turkish Immigrants In Europe, the two largest groups of immigrants come from Morocco and Turkey. Turkish speakers constitute the largest immigrant minority in the European context. Speakers of Turkish are more numerous than most of the other indigenous minority groups in Europe. Table 2.1 presents the recent figures of Turkish nationals resident in European countries. The numbers only include those persons who hold the citizenship of Turkey in some countries (e.g., Germany). Persons who were naturalized in the receiving countries are not included in these figures. The Turks in Greece and Bulgaria are not immigrants but indigenous minorities in two respective countries. The number of Turkish speakers who reside in Germany is around three million but as seen in Table 2.1, the number is more than 1.3 million. The difference is because of the number of Turks who acquired German citizenship in Germany. The same applies to large numbers of Turks living in France; actual numbers of Turks in France are much higher than the official statistics. Today, the Turkish population in France is estimated to be 611,515 (Yagmur, 2016). In the following section, population characteristics of Turkish immigrants in three largest immigration contexts, (France, Germany, and the Netherlands) are discussed.

2.4.1 Turkish Immigrants in France The first bilateral immigration agreement between France and Turkey was signed in 1965, but massive Turkish migration only started at the beginning of the 70s and continued in the 80s. Between 1968 and 1972, the Turkish population increased to 50,860; and between 1972 and 1982, it rose further to 123,540. The increase is not only due to labour migration but also due to family reunification for those immigrants whose families had remained in the home country. In the 1982 census, the consequences of family reunification were already obvious. It led to a sharp rise

18 Table 2.1 Number of Turkish immigrants in European countries

2 Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic … Country

Turkish speakers

Belgium

96,999

Bulgaria

588,318

Czech Republic

1,517

Denmark

32,366

Germany

1,318,420

Estonia

79

Ireland

1,301

Greece

150,000

Spain

2,510

France

256,409

Croatia

86

Italy

22,580

Cyprus

501

Latvia

84

Luxembourg

585

Hungary

1,904

Malta

223

Netherlands

397,000

Austria

158,688

Poland

1,484

Portugal

231

Romania

4,393

Slovenia

97

Slovakia

148

Finland

5,139

Sweden

44,041

United Kingdom

93,915

Iceland

66

Norway

10,752

Switzerland

73,933

Total

3,263,769

Note Numbers are derived from Eurostat interactive website on 16 January 2017. There are many inconsistencies with the actual national figures

2.4 Demographic Characteristics of Turkish Immigrants

19

in the number of both women and young people (between 10 and 34 years). By the year 1990, there were 202,000 Turkish speakers in France. They were then the fourth largest immigrant community in the country. In 1990, for half of the Turkish population, the average age was below twenty. Thus, as opposed to less-educated first generation Turkish immigrants, the young generations have been through the French school system and their educational and vocational profiles are much better than the previous generations. This modifies the general profile and outlook of the Turkish population in France. The children tend to be bilingual, speaking Turkish with the parents and French among themselves (Akinci, 2001, 2006). Many Turkish families have now permanently settled in France. Nevertheless, they maintain contacts with the parental homeland. They may end up staying in France indefinitely, whereas at first, they thought their stay was only temporary. Today, the Turkish population in France is estimated to be 611,515. Turkish speakers are concentrated mainly in Ilede-France (269,090), Alsace (134,139), Rhone-Alpes (129,062), Provence-AlpesCote-d’Azur (61,714), other regions (18,050). According to the National Institute for Demographic Studies (INED) and the National Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), in the year in 2008–2009, the number of Turkish speakers in the age category of 18–60 is 285,000 in However, according to Turkish consulate numbers total population of Turkish in France is almost double that number. Citizenship rates among the Turkish speakers is quite low; around 15,000 have acquired French nationality (the number is very low due to French language proficiency condition for the applicants) (Kastoryano, 2003). Most Turkish immigrants in France are still blue-collar workers. According to Echardour and Maurin (1993), 43.7% of Turks were working in production, 28.5% in construction and 23.5% in the services. Although, following the study of Brabant (1992), there has been a slight shift in the occupational structure from blue-collar (89.9% in 1982, 80% in 1989) to white-collar jobs and self-employment (both, 6.6% in 1982, 18.5% in 1989), the majority of the working Turkish population can still be identified as blue-collar. As in other major immigration contexts (Australia, Germany, The Netherlands), in-group marriage tendency is very strong among the Turkish-French. According to Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques (INSEE) (1997), 98% of girls and 92% of boys marry a person from Turkey, which is why the migration process renews itself continuously. Turkey-born young immigrants arriving in France through family reunification contribute to language maintenance. According to INSEE, in Turkish families, 17% of the fathers and 3% of the mothers talk to their children in French (as compared to 69 and 52% of the Algerians.) The population structure of Turkish immigrants in France is very young, which is the same pattern observed in other immigration contexts as well. In 2002, 47,781 Turkish children were in nursery and primary schools, 21,085 in the secondary, and 2,633 in special classes. Compared to the other immigration contexts (such as Australia or the USA), Turkish immigrants in France have more resources, domains and facilities for first language use and maintenance. Turkish immigrants in Europe can visit their homeland at least once every year. The tradition of sending their deceased ones to Turkey

20

2 Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic …

is still very strong among Turkish immigrants in France and in other West European countries. There are special Islamic organizations to cater for this need of the community. Turkish language media are readily accessible to Turkish immigrants in France. Most of the major Turkish newspapers have rather high-circulation European editions. There are weekly magazines and journals coming from Turkey as well. Movies, concerts, and exhibitions by Turkish artists are also very common all-over Western Europe. Along with print media, major Turkish TV channels can be received by cable or satellite-dish. Members of the receiving societies are mostly critical of satellite-dishes, arguing that they delay ‘integration’ of immigrants. Some marginal groups even support the idea of a “ban” on those satellite-dishes. Nevertheless, there is a growing demand for Turkish-medium broadcasting and Turkish immigrants who have satellite-dishes can receive around 30 Turkish medium channels. Besides, in the age of Internet, immigrants can access a rich variety of first language medium resources in cyberspace. These support factors, presumably, contribute to maintenance of Turkish language and provide a wide (and rich) social network for Turkish immigrants. Finally, learning and teaching of Turkish considerably contributes to the maintenance of first language skills among younger generations. Based on a bilateral cultural agreement, French and Turkish governments agreed to provide mother tongue education for Turkish children in French schools. In line with the practice in many other European countries, the Turkish government sends teachers from Turkey to teach Turkish language, Turkish history and geography in French schools (Akinci, 2009), which considerably supports language learning and maintenance of the heritage language.

2.4.2 Turkish Immigrants in Germany Turks are the largest minority group resident in Germany. In 2005, the number of residents of Turkish origin was approximately 2,812,000 comprising 3.5% of Germany’s population. Among them some 840,000 Turkish immigrants held German nationality. Since then, approximately 75,000 nationals were added to this number each year. In 2010, the German Embassy to Turkey reported that there are 3.5 million people of Turkish origin living in Germany and that a further 3 million Turks have spent part of their lives in Germany. Other estimates suggest that there are now over 4 million Turks and German nationals with partial or full Turkish ancestry in Germany, making up about 5% of Germany’s total population. Turkish immigrants are concentrated mostly in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW). There are currently around 1.1 million Turkish immigrants residing in NRW comprising 5% of this state’s population and making up 32% of the total number of Turkish immigrants in Germany. Köln and Düsseldorf in NRW are the largest residential places for Turks. The Federal Statistics Office, called Statistisches Bundesamt,

2.4 Demographic Characteristics of Turkish Immigrants Table 2.2 Turkish speakers in different German states

21

State

Number of Turks % of state population

North Rhine-Westphalia

1,019,000

5.7

Baden-Württemberg

508,000

4.7

Bavaria

377,000

3.0

Hessen

283,000

4.6

Berlin

218,000

6.2

Lower Saxony

221,000

2.8

Rhineland-Palatinate

122,000

3.1

Hamburg

93,000

5.2

Schleswig–Holstein

60,000

2.1

Bremen

49,000

7.4

Neue Länder (former East Germany)

25,000

0.2

23,000

2.3

2,998,000

3.7

Saarland Total

Source https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/ Bevoelkerung/MigrationIntegration/Migrationshintergrund201 0220127004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

uses nationality criteria in their population statistics. According to German population statistics bureau, the number of Turkish speakers living in Germany is around 3 million. The distribution of Turkish speakers across different German states is presented in Table 2.2. As seen from the figures in Table 2.2, the largest number of Turkish speakers live in the State North-Rhine Westphalia, the largest industrial State of Germany. For immigrant minorities, education is a key factor in giving access to the host society’s social and economic domains. Hence, the educational status of Turkish immigrants provides a good indicator for integration patterns. In the school year 2004–2005, there were around 520,000 Turkish students in the German education system: 185,326 pupils attending primary schools (Grundschule), 96,144 attending basic general schools (Hauptschule), 38,787 in secondary vocational schools (Realschule), 34,361 pupils in Intermediate schools (Gymnasium) and 78,051 pupils attending different vocational schools (Source: Turkish Education Consulate to Germany, 2005). The main reasons for Turkish pupils’ lower levels of schooling compared to German pupils lie in the selective German educational system and the low socioeconomic status of Turkish immigrants. The German education system channels pupils at a very early age towards one of three different tracks. These tracks differ in academic orientation and requirements. The basic school (Hauptschule) graduates individuals after six years of secondary education and is traditionally a preparation for blue-collar occupations. The middle school (Realschule) also lasts six years and trains for white-collar employment. The highest track (Gymnasium) offers nine years

22

2 Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic …

of schooling and a degree (Abitur), which is a precondition for academic studies. Depending on the track, pupils typically finish school aged 16 or 19 (Riphahn, 2003). At the end of primary education, pupils are channeled into one of these routes based on federal state legislation. It varies according to federal state legislation whether the child’s performance is the decisive factor and whether parents must follow the recommendations of the schools regarding their children’s placements (Söhn & Özcan, 2006). There are differences from one federal state to another, but in general, proficiency in German is the key factor in obtaining access to favored schools, which inevitably leaves Turkish pupils at a disadvantage. Large numbers of Turkish pupils leave primary school with relatively low educational achievement. This limits their opportunities mostly to general secondary schools, which provide apprenticeships and vocational education. In basic primary schools, about 12% of all pupils were of foreign origin in 2004. By the time students reach the Gymnasium, the proportion of foreign pupils has declined to about 4%. This leads to a severe under-representation of Turkish students in the university system, as this requires them to have an Abitur or academic high school certificate. Given this picture of discrepancies between Turkish and German pupils, it appears that there is an intentional structural discrimination against non-German pupils at school. Not only have intermediate and advanced levels of schooling, the entry roads to further studies and professional qualifications, been less accessible to Turkish pupils than to their peers of German or other national origin. Turkish pupils have also been more likely than other minority groups to be considered educationally below normal and compelled to attend special schools.

2.4.3 Turkish Immigrants in the Netherlands After Germany and France, the third largest group of Turkish immigrants (based on birth country criteria, 397,000) reside in the Netherlands. Turkish group is the largest immigrant group in the country. Like in other immigration contexts, Turks concentrate mainly in major urban centers. In the year 2006, most Turks lived in Rotterdam (12.8%) followed by Amsterdam (10.8%), The Hague (8.4%), and Utrecht (3.5%). In these major concentration areas, they also tend to live in the same suburbs, which provides them with extended social networks. Compared to the age distribution of the mainstream society, Turkish immigrants are rather young. While the majority (80.2%) of Turkish immigrants are below age forty, only 50% of the mainstream Dutch population is below forty. The average birth rate among Turkish immigrants (2.2) is also higher compared to the Dutch population (1.6). First-generation Turkish women had more number of children than the second generation, but still, Turkish women bear more children than Dutch women (CBS, 2000). The type of marriage (endogamous or exogamous) is considered to be an important variable in language maintenance and shift studies. When members of a minority language group marry from another ethnolinguistic group, the chance of shifting to the mainstream language is most likely. The extent of in-group marriages of Turks is very high compared to most other major ethnic groups in the Netherlands. Most of

2.4 Demographic Characteristics of Turkish Immigrants

23

the Turkish immigrants marry someone from the same ethno-linguistic background. According to 2002 figures of Central Bureau Statistics (CBS), 98% of the firstgeneration men and 99% of women are married with someone from the same ethnic background. These figures are 91 and 92% for the second-generation, respectively. As young immigrants marry mostly with someone from the homeland, the number of immigrants arriving through family formation increases each year. For their children, parents usually prefer a partner from the same region of origin, because such a partner is considered to have the ‘characteristic’ Turkish norms and values. Religious concerns also play an important role in the high rate of endogamous marriages. Through family reunion and family formation, each year thousands of new immigrants arrive in the Netherlands, e.g., 6,181 new immigrants arrived in the Netherlands in 2002. In order to control this inflow of immigrants, the Dutch government is taking new measures to minimize the number of immigrants entering the country. For instance, the government demands 6,750 Euros from each newcomer for the cost of language and integration classes. Furthermore, according to new law any migrant below the age of 21 cannot bring a partner from another country to the Netherlands. Besides, any migrant wishing to marry someone outside the Netherlands must be earning 120% of the minimum wage so that s/he can bring his partner into the country. According to Hooghiemstra (2003: 174), it will be impossible for Turks and Moroccans living in the Netherlands to marry a partner from the country of origin due to age and income conditions. Turkish immigrants have extended social networks and through various organizations and associations, group members maintain contact with each other (Van Heelsum & Tillie, 1999). Turkish language media are readily accessible for Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. Most of the major Turkish newspapers and local Turkish magazines and newspapers are easily obtainable. Along with print media, major Turkish TV channels can be received by cable or satellite-dish. On a regular basis, Turkish language plays are performed both by actors coming from Turkey or by local immigrant Turkish theatre groups. Movies, concerts, and exhibitions by Turkish artists are also very common all-over Western Europe. In the main Turkishconcentration areas, public libraries have quite rich collections in Turkish. These support factors contribute to the maintenance of Turkish and provide extended social networks for Turkish immigrants.

2.4.4 Turkish Immigrants in Australia According to the population census in 2011, there are 32,845 Turkish-born people in Australia, which shows an increase of 7.7% compared to the 2006 census. The 2011 distribution by state and territory showed that Victoria had the largest number with 16,487 Turkish speakers followed by New South Wales (12,977), Queensland (1,384) and Western Australia (1,046). Small numbers of Turkish people also live in Canberra (211), Tasmania (74) and the Northern Territory (43). The Australian census includes a question on ancestry. Apparently, not all Turkish-born immigrants have

24

2 Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic …

a Turkish origin. In the 2011 census, the great majority of Turkish-born immigrants reported their ancestry as Turkish (27,650). There were also people who identified their ancestry as Kurdish (1,357) and Armenian (954). Including the second and third generations, 66,919 people indicated their ancestry as Turkish. Examining the census data for the language-use question provides a general trend of language maintenance or shift. According to the 2011 census, the main languages spoken at home by Turkish-born people in Australia were Turkish (27,274), English (2,660), Greek (714) and Armenian (543). Apparently, a great majority of those Turkish-born immigrants who identified themselves as Kurdish, also speak Turkish or English because Kurdish is not reported. Out of the 30,186 Turkish-born immigrants who spoke a language other than English at home, 68 per cent spoke English very well or well, and 30.7% spoke English not well or not at all. Compared to the Turkish immigrants in Western Europe, Turkish-born immigrants in Australia have much lower unemployment rates. Among Turkish-born people aged 15 years and over, the participation rate in the labour force was 49.2% and the unemployment rate was 9.3%. Among the 13,947 Turkish-born who were employed, 45.7% were employed in either a skilled managerial, professional or trade occupation. The corresponding rate in the total Australian population was 48.4%. Educational qualifications play an important role in obtaining well-paid jobs. According to the Australian Statistics Bureau, at the 2011 census, 36.4% of the Turkish-born had some form of higher qualifications compared to 55.9% of the Australian population. It was reported that 5.4% of Turkish-born immigrants were still attending an educational institution. Receiving up-to-date information on the types of schools attended by Turkish immigrant children is not always possible. Based on the figures received from the Department of Education in Sydney, the schools attended by Turkish youngsters are shown in Table 2.3. Turkish classes are organised by the Victorian School of Languages, by Turkish community organizations and also by the departments of education in Victoria and New South Wales. Turkish classes organised by the Victorian School of Languages in Melbourne are attended by around 3,500 primary and secondary students. The National Ministry of Turkish Education also sends Turkish teachers to Australia to serve the community. Compared to earlier periods of immigration, the facilities for the learning and teaching of Turkish are quite rich. The Turkish group in Victoria is a very well organised and a vital community. According to nationality statistics, Turkey provides the 20th largest overseas-born group in Victoria. As is very well known in demo-linguistic studies, nationality statistics give a false impression about ethnolinguistic groups. The language used at home figures give a much better idea about the language maintenance of the group. When language data is considered, Turkish is the seventh largest language group in Victoria after Italian, Greek, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Cantonese and Arabic in the 2011 population census. Compared to the previous census, this is an increase of 10.6%. The 2011 census indicates that there were 16,490 Turkish speakers living in Victoria. Similar to their European counterparts, the Turkish presence in Australia is highly concentrated, around 50% live in Melbourne, Victoria. Similar to other immigration

2.4 Demographic Characteristics of Turkish Immigrants Table 2.3 The distribution of Turkish students across various school types

25

School type

Number of students

Pre-school education

761

State primary schools

4,470

Catholic primary schools

76

Other primary schools

1,103

State secondary-schools

3,631

Catholic secondary-schools

201

Private Turkish colleges

727

TAFE (technical and further education) colleges

1,852

University and other advanced education 1,837 institutions Other

624

Not reported

1,944

Not attending any schools

33,467

Total population

50,693

contexts, the Turkish community in Australia is religiously-oriented; only a very small percentage of the population consider themselves to have no religion. The rate of having Australian citizenship rate among Turkish speakers is very high (85.6%).

2.4.5 Turkish Immigrants in the United States of America As documented in Yagmur and Colak-Bostanci (2015), acculturation orientations of Turkish speakers in the United States of America has not received much scholarly attention. The total population of the United States of America is over 300 million and compared to other ethnic groups such as Latin Americans (reaching 50 million), African-Americans (around 40 million), and the Chinese (around 3.5 million), the population of the Turkish group is rather small (189,000 in official statistics but over 400,000 including undocumented immigrants). The number of male immigrants (53.4%) is larger than female immigrants (46.6%). The fact that Turkish community is the largest immigrant group in Germany (around 3 million) and in the Netherlands (over 400,000), the proportional size of the Turkish in the States is rather negligible. According to Kö¸ser-Akçapar (2009) three different waves of Turkish immigration to the USA are discerned: (1) early flow (1820–1950) includes people from ethnic and religious minorities such as Armenians, Greeks and Jewish; (2) brain-drain immigration (1951–1980); and (3) recent mixed flow (students, semi-skilled/unskilled; professionals, political refugees; and increasing number of undocumented immigrants).

26 Table 2.4 Educational profile of the mainstream Americans and Turkish immigrants

2 Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic … Total US

Turkish

Population 25 years and over

200,030,018

119,670

Less than high school diploma

15.0%

11.8%

High school graduate

28.5%

19.5%

College or associate’s degree

28.8%

20.1%

Bachelor’s degree

17.5%

23.0%

Graduate or professional degree

10.2%

25.7%

Source United States Census Bureau (2008)

Compared to Turkish immigrants in the European countries, educational and professional profile of Turkish-Americans is considerably different. In European countries, Turks are characterized as being lowly educated, having high unemployment rates and large school dropout rates among the younger generations (Table 2.4). Compared to the mainstream American population, Turkish immigrants have much higher educational qualifications. While 49% of the Turkish immigrants have a university degree, the figure for the mainstream Americans is around 28%. Considering the 3 or 4% of university graduates among Turkish immigrants in the European context, the Turkish-American profile is typical brain-drain immigration. Table 2.5 shows that 45% of Turkish immigrants were born and raised in the United States. Together with naturalized Turkish immigrants 67% of all Turkish-born hold American citizenship. Again compared to the European context, this percentage is very high. Table 2.6 presents highly relevant evidence with respect to first language maintenance and second language skills. Very different from the Turkish immigrants in the European Union, almost 35% of the Turkish in the States speak only English Table 2.5 Birth-country of Turkish immigrants compared to the American mainstream

USA Native born

Turkish

266,098,793

84,425

Foreign born; naturalized U.S. citizen

16,329,909

42,231

Foreign born; not a U.S. citizen

21,631,026

62,984

Source United States Census Bureau (2008)

Table 2.6 Language proficiency estimates of Turkish immigrants

USA

Turkish

Population 5 years and over

283,149,507

175,633

English only

80.3%

34.4%

Language other than English

19.7%

65.6%

Speak English less than “very well”

8.6%

27.2%

Source United States Census Bureau (2008)

2.4 Demographic Characteristics of Turkish Immigrants

27

in the domestic domain. This evidence is very much in line with Kö¸ser-Akçapar’s study (2009: 210) that all the respondents in her study stated that ‘they were pretty much integrated into American society’. Halman’s earlier study (1980) on TurkishAmericans showed similar results. Well-educated Turks retain strong emotional and intellectual ties with Turkey but they adopt an American way of life. Less educated Turks maintain a Turkish style of living. Second-generation Turks are much more aware of their American identity with a Turkish heritage.

2.5 Cultural and Linguistic Integration of Turkish Immigrants Turkish immigration to Europe has been widely studied in many disciplines ranging from economics to psychology. Despite the dominant political and public discourse showing Turkish immigrants as a homogeneous group, Turkish immigrants consist of a very diverse group of people coming from very different educational, social, linguistic, ethnic and religious backgrounds. Such oversimplifications mostly contribute to stereotyping and marginalization of the Turkish immigrants in most European countries. In social sciences, accurate scientific analyses would require an examination of all the possible factors that influence the phenomenon being studied. Most research studies are conducted on small groups of Turkish informants in a particular national context. Policy makers usually derive their conclusions from these small-scale studies. In fact, the social reality of Turkish immigrants is very complex and multilayered. Intergenerational differences alone would show huge amount of variation. However, there is also the sense of unity and cohesion, a community feeling among them. Turkish immigrants living in European countries maintain a high level of transnational contacts. They have multiple citizenships and they have contacts with other Turkish immigrants living in other European countries and Turkey. These transnational ties are very high in density and strength that some Turkish immigrants call themselves ‘European Turks’ having local and international ties. Future studies on Turkish immigrants should investigate the reconstruction of this new identity. Socio-cultural and linguistic adaptation to the new society is a complex matter. Depending on to what extent immigrant minority groups consider their own language as part of their core values, they either maintain their first language or shift to the mainstream language (Smolicz, 1981). In order to test the relationship between state integration policies and immigrant responses, Yagmur and van de Vijver (2012) examined acculturation and language orientations among Turkish immigrants in Australia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. They expected that in the countries with the least pluralistic climate (France and Germany), Turkish immigrants would show the lowest level of sociocultural adjustment and the highest level of ethnic orientation and language use, the opposite was expected in Australia, as the country with the most pluralistic climate, and the Netherlands would have an intermediate position. The predictions were largely borne out. The language orientation

28

2 Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic …

measures yielded a (symbolic) language value factor and a (behavioral) language preference factor. In all countries Turkish identity was a positive predictor and mainstream identity a negative predictor of both the language value and preference factor. Mainstream and Turkish identity showed stronger negative correlations in the less pluralistic countries. Identification with the host society was lowest in Germany and highest in the United States and Australia. It is concluded that immigrants showed least maintenance and most adjustment in Australia, which is the country with the least pressure to assimilate. Inclusive policies might facilitate higher levels of sociocultural and linguistic integration into the mainstream society; however, the factors like distance to the home country, reason for migration and educational level of the immigrants are significant factors promoting higher levels of linguistic assimilation. As documented in Chap. 3, Australia and the USA prefer highly skilled immigrants. The proportion of highly educated Turks in the American and Australian context is much higher than the Turks in the European context. Based on their analysis of Turkish acculturation orientations in the four national contexts, Yagmur and van de Vijver (2012) concluded that there was a close connection between the degree of acculturation and integration ideology of the receiving societies. Turkish immigrants in Australia appear to better integrate into the mainstream society compared to their counterparts in the European context. The clear difference between Australian and European discourse regarding immigrants and immigration might play a major role in the acculturation process. The public discourse about immigrants and asylum seekers is remarkably negative in Europe (Crowley & Hickman, 2008). As a result, immigrants’ position as outsiders is strengthened and managing migration and promoting social cohesion appear to be a greater challenge for policy makers in most European nation states. In addition, because most European countries have not considered themselves as countries of immigration, coming to terms with social and cultural changes as a result of diversity becomes much harder compared to Australia which is characterized and accepted as an immigration country. Findings of Yagmur and van de Vijver (2012) clearly show differences in the degree of Turkish immigrants’ sense of belonging in the four immigration contexts. These national differences may also be related to the psychological climate vis-à-vis multiculturalism experienced by Turkish immigrants in their everyday lives. Populations in countries with a long history of immigration such as Australia may well be more welcoming for immigrants. It is no surprise that the sense of belonging was largest in the Turkish-Australian group. Social inclusion rather exclusion seems to help immigrants better in the integration process. A faster adjustment to the mainstream society seems to be possible by using inclusive policies rather than exclusive ones.

2.6 Language Maintenance and Shift Most studies on Turkish immigrants focus on the socio-cultural integration, second language learning, cultural adaptation (most essentially assimilation), and school

2.6 Language Maintenance and Shift

29

achievement of Turkish immigrants. A second group of researchers examines intergenerational Turkish language use, choice, vitality, language maintenance and shift of Turkish groups. Many research papers are written on issues such as language maintenance, language choice, codeswitching and contact-induced change (Backus, 1996; Boeschoten, 1990, 2000; Pfaff, 2000; Türker, 2000; Yagmur, 2009, 2016; Yagmur & Akinci, 2003). Regarding maintenance and shift, Turkish immigrant groups are very diverse in their linguistic practices. Some Turkish immigrants mostly socialize almost only with other Turkish speakers and they use only Turkish in their interactions. For such immigrants, strong language maintenance is the outcome in many European countries. Another group of Turkish immigrants are balanced bilinguals and depending on the purpose and the interlocutor they can use both the host language and Turkish interchangeably. A smaller group of Turkish immigrants, usually the younger generations, shifted to the host language and they use almost only the societal language. Yagmur and Akinci (2003) showed that Turkish is mostly spoken in the domestic domain and in the neighbourhood with other Turkish immigrants. Similar to other immigration settings, Turkish immigrants in France concentrate in certain workingclass suburbs, which provide them with a rich network of first language speakers (Archibald, 2002; Tribalat, 1995). Similar to Germany, (Karakasoglu, 1996) and the Netherlands (Yagmur, 2009), Turkish religious organizations in France and especially mosques provide a rich social network for the community. Even though there is very little institutional support from the mainstream community for first language maintenance, Turkish language mass media are readily available in France and combined with Turkish language teaching at schools, basic conditions for first language maintenance are available. High rate of in-group marriages might be another factor contributing to first language maintenance. In most cases, Turkish persons born in France marry persons born in Turkey, which results in constant inflow of firstgeneration immigrants. Thus, Turkish does not lose its dominant role in the domestic domain and children born into those families acquire Turkish as their first language. As documented by Multilingual Cities Project (Extra & Yagmur, 2004) Turkish youngsters are reasonably proficient in Turkish and Turkish has the highest vitality score of all ethnic languages in Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. As documented by Yagmur (2009) in the Dutch context, both generations of Turkish speakers are language maintenance oriented. In previous studies on language maintenance and shift, generational differences were identified as a significant variable affecting language maintenance and shift. Second-generation immigrants tend to shift faster to the host language (L2). Depending on the language contact context and the speech community concerned, either a complete shift to L2 or stronger language maintenance of L1 is observed. The findings of this study show that irrespective of generational differences Turkish immigrants tend to maintain their first languages. Higher skills in the host language do not mean loss of skills in the first language. Depending on how highly the group values its ancestral language, they either support balanced bilingualism or totally shift to the mainstream language.

30

2 Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic …

2.7 School Achievement Issues With regard to school achievement of children of Turkish origin, the results of the studies present different findings. Academic failures of children and students with a Turkish descent from different age groups have been repeatedly shown in previous studies. To exemplify, a research with primary school fourth and fifth graders from Dutch, Moroccan and Turkish families with low and high socio-economic status in the Netherlands showed that Turkish children received the lowest scores in terms of Dutch reading comprehension, decoding skills and oral proficiency (Droop & Verhoeven, 2003). In a large-scale study with 5,000 primary school children from six ethnic categories in Flanders (Belgium), Belfi et al. (2014) conducted a largescale study with 5,000 primary school children from six ethnic categories in Flanders (Belgium) and observed Turkish children’s low achievement in spelling and reading skills throughout primary school education in comparison to other ethnic groups in Flanders. Next, a recent study was conducted by D’Haeselaar et al. (2016) who compared six-year-old Turkish-Dutch bilingual children and their monolingual Dutch peers through CELF-4, a test for early language development. They found that the Turkish-Dutch sequential bilingual children in their study obtained lower scores than their Dutch-speaking monolingual peers and other non-Western immigrants. Most of the extant research in this domain has been conducted about mainstream language proficiency of children of Turkish origin but in recent years there have been studies about Turkish language development and proficiency of children and students of Turkish background. With 30 bilingual Turkish-Dutch children and 30 monolingual Turkish children around 6 years old in the Netherlands, Ako˘glu and Ya˘gmur (2016) found that Turkish immigrant children were not as competent as their monolingual peers in terms of L1 skills. In a similar vein, Backus and Yagmur (2017) added that socio-pragmatic skills of eight-year-old bilingual children of Turkish origin are not at the same level as those of their age-matched monolingual peers. Pragmatics skills, such as using language in line with the social norms and conventions, complimenting and requesting are in close interaction with language competence. Next, Bezcioglu-Goktolga (2016) observed that 5-to-8-year-old Turkish-Dutch children performed poorly on several Turkish language tasks such as word definition, word order repetition and grammaticality judgment. However, Marinis and Ozge (2010) conducted a comparative study with Turkish-English bilingual children and Turkish monolingual children to measure their receptive Turkish language skills. They did not discover any drastic difference between the bilingual and monolingual groups. They argue that this may be due to the fact that they only considered the children’s receptive skills and not their productive skills, which had been taken into account in all other studies mentioned above. In addition, Yagmur and Nap-Kolhoff (2010) conducted a study with 7 Turkish-Dutch bilingual children (aged 3:0 and 3:6) who were brought up in Turkish-dominant environment and compared their Turkish language into Turkish monolingual reference group through a monolingual corpus collected through Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT). In their study, the bilingual children did not lag from their monolingual counterparts

2.7 School Achievement Issues

31

in terms of MLU, case markings and plural markers but they showed lower skills in intelligibility, lexical diversity and verbal markings. The results from international comparative research programs such as PISA and PIRLS are also influential on presenting a negative general profile of immigrant children in terms of academic success. This underachievement has mostly been attributed to Turkish minority students as they have been highly populated in different European countries. The prevalent language ideologies in Western European countries have made home language of students of immigrant origin the main culprit of their academic underachievement. However; there are other factors to consider about the reasons of this academic failure such as school composition (Agirdag et al., 2011), attitudes towards speaking Turkish in school context (Agirdag et al., 2014) and influence of mainstream teachers (Bezcioglu-Goktolga & Yagmur, 2018).

2.8 Heritage Language Education Models in Europe The term “heritage language” is widely used in the American and Canadian context, but its use is quite recent in the European context. Other terms are also used interchangibly such as community language, home language and family language. In this paper, ‘heritage language education’ refers to Turkish classes to develop the Turkish language skills of children of Turkish origin in Western Europe. To start with the situation in the Netherlands, according to Extra and Yagmur (2006), the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 resulted in a drastic change in the attitude towards immigrant minority languages in Dutch education system in the Netherlands. The pluralistic approach was replaced by monolingualism perspective. Between 1974 and 2004 in primary schools, Turkish classes were taught within the framework of heritage language education, which was first categorized under OETC (Onderwijs in Eigen Taal en Cultuur—Education in One’s Own Language and Culture) and then renamed as OALT (Onderwijs in Allochtone Levende Talen— Education in Nonindigenous Living Languages). In 2004, Turkish classes were stopped, which was protested by the Turkish community organizations, but this public reaction did not lead to any change. However, this triggered a national community initiated action. Establishing the Dutch foundation for Turkish Education and with an encouraging slogan “Türkçe için Elele” [Hand in hand for Turkish], a group of Turkish community members started Turkish classes for primary school children of Turkish origin. Extracurricular Turkish classes were offered in more than ten municipalities, receiving no political objection. The foundation was officially closed in 2012 by the action initiators because of insufficient resources (teaching materials, financial resources to employ qualified teachers, classrooms and so on). Today, Turkish classes are organized locally in the mosques or Turkish organizations and supported by projects in collaboration with Yurt Dı¸sı Türkler Ba¸skanlı˘gı YTB (Presidency for Turks Abroad and Related Communities). As for France, Turkish classes began in 1978 as heritage language classes (referred as ELCO: Enseignement des Langues et Cultures d’Origine), then was included into

32

2 Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic …

the secondary school program as a foreign language (Enseignement des Langues Vivantes) (Akinci & Jolly, 2010). The main motivation of these classes in France was to help children’s adaptation process into the host culture and not to make them lose their connection with their home country. Turkey appointed Turkish language teachers in line with the agreement between France and Turkey in 1978. There are no ELCO classes for pre-school children, high school, and university students in France. In ELCO programs, Turkish classes are offered as extracurricular activity, outside the school hours, weekly 1.5 h or at weekends in Turkish organizations. These classes are given in the suburbs where Turkish people mostly live, so families are responsible for taking their children to that school. Because of the limited number of teachers and sparse population of Turkish people across France, it is not always possible to conduct Turkish classes everywhere. When it comes to Germany, we see the different implementations of Turkish heritage language classes across states. This mostly depends on the state’s approach concerning ethnic ideology. The diversity of Turkish as a heritage language classes in Germany have been discussed by various researchers (Küppers et al., 2015; Pfaff et al., 2017). To categorize the teaching programs, different terminology has been used such as inclusive versus exclusive programmes (Küppers et al., 2015), micro versus macro teaching (Pfaff et al., 2017). Turkish is taught in the elementary school as an extracurriculur activity—not integrated into the formal programme, which is organized by the Turkish Consulate in one of the states in Germany. In a limited number of states and schools, Turkish-German are coordinated through literacy education in the first and second year of elementary school and then integrated into the mainstream education. In general, there are no Turkish heritage language classes at secondary school level in Germany but there are some different project-based implementations such as the Carl-von Ossietzky school in Berlin where Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) technique is followed in teaching Turkish. In addition, Turkish for specific purposes is taught in one vocational school, the Louise-Schroeder-School in Berlin (Küppers et al., 2015). As mentioned above, currently there is no official institutional support for the Turkish heritage language education in most European countries with the exception of Sweden and some states in Germany, Belgium, Austria and France. However, Turkish classes are not part of the regular curriculum in these countries.

2.9 Concluding Remarks This Chapter provided an overview of research on Turkish language as an immigrant variety in Western Europe. There are more than five million Turkish speakers in multiple European countries. A strong tradition of language maintenance marks Turkish immigrant groups. As shown in this profile Chapter, language shift is relatively slow in this community. Even in the third and fourth generation, Turkish speakers are characterized by bilingualism (Turkish plus the societally dominant language spoken in the country of immigration). The Turkish community is better

2.9 Concluding Remarks

33

equipped than most other immigrant groups to maintain their heritage language for a long time; however, Turkish immigrants are faced with multiple social and educational problems. As discussed in detail in Yagmur (2017), low social status leads to multiple problems in education and in work life. Similar to Spanish speaking immigrants in the USA, Turkish language is associated with low linguistic status leading to limited offering in mainstream schools. Lower school achievement among immigrant minority children is a serious problem in most European countries. Factors leading to underachievement at school are complex and interrelated. In the literature on bilingualism and school success, individual characteristics of minority students are shown to be one of the most influential on school failure. Because of subtractive bilingual environments, cognitive skills of ethnic students do not develop sufficiently compared to mainstream children. If a child’s home language is undervalued or banned on the school ground, identity development might also be hampered. As a result, lower self-esteem among minority students might lead to lower achievement. Due to segregated schools, there is insufficient exposure to the majority language which might in turn lead to inadequate proficiency in the mainstream language. It is also common knowledge that there are gaps between home and school culture due to different socialization patterns, which might also have an effect on school achievement of immigrant children. Most immigrant parents are known to be non-proficient in the mainstream language, which leads to restrictions in parental involvement. If schools want to improve school achievement of immigrant children, old-fashioned submersion models need to be dropped. By employing teachers and support personnel from linguistic minority backgrounds, schools could support first- and second-language development of immigrant children. Many researchers agree that Turkish spoken in Turkish communities shows the first signs of linguistic change (Backus, 2011). In the absence of institutional support, Turkish communities still hold onto their cultural and linguistic practices.

34

2 Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic …

Picture 2.1 Young Turkish guest workers at Sirkeci station in Istanbul

Picture 2.2 Early Turkish migrants preparing their evening meal in their bedroom

2.9 Concluding Remarks

Picture 2.3 Turkish guest workers in the tunnels of coalmines in Belgium

Picture 2.4 Turkish immigrant children posed as a problem for mainstream schools

35

36

2 Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic …

Picture 2.5 Turkish immigrant children receiving Quran lessons in Schiedam Mosque

References Abadan-Unat, N. (1976). Turkish migration to Europe: A balance sheet of achievements and failures. In N. Abadan-Unat (Ed.), Turkish workers in Europe (pp. 1–44). E.J. Brill. Agirdag, O., Van Houtte, M., & Van Avermaet, P. (2011). Ethnic school context and the national and sub-national identifications of pupils. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(2), 357–378. Agirdag, O., Jordens, K., & Van Houtte, M. (2014). Speaking Turkish in Belgian schools: Teacher beliefs versus effective consequences. Bilig, 70(3), 7–28. Akinci, M. A. (2006). Du bilinguisme à la bilittéracie. Comparaison entre élèves bilingues turcfrançais et élèves monolingues français. Langage Et Société, 116, 93–110. Akinci, M. A., & Jolly, A. (2010). Fransa’da Türkçe ö˘gretiminde son durum: uygulamalar, sorunlar ve öneriler [La situation de l’enseignement du turc en France: applications, problèmes et propositions]. In Proceedings of the 8. Dünyada Türkçe Ö˘gretimi: Türkçeyi Yabancı Dil Olarak Ö˘gretenler Zirvesi (pp. 80–96). Ankara University, TÖMER. Akinci, M. A. (2001). Développement des compétences narratives des enfants bilingues turc-français en France âgés de 5 à 10 ans. LINCOM. Akinci, M. A. (2009). Fransa’da Türkçenin Anadili ve Yabancı Dil Olarak E˘gitimi. In: D. Yaylı, & Y. Bayyurt (Eds.), Yabancılara Türkçe ögretimi: Politika, Yöntem ve Beceriler (pp. 204–222). Anı Yayınları. Akoglu, G., & Yagmur, K. (2016). First-language skills of bilingual Turkish immigrant children growing up in a Dutch submersion context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(6), 706–721. Archibald, J. (2002). Immigrant integration: The ongoing process of reform in France and Québec. In: S. J. Baker (Ed.), Language policy: Lessons from global models (pp. 30–58). Monterey Institute.

References

37

Backus, A., & Yagmur, K. (2017). Differences in pragmatic skills between bilingual Turkish immigrant children in the Netherlands and monolingual peers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1–14.https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006917703455 Backus, A. (1996). Two in one. Bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. (Studies in multilingualism, Vol. 1). Tilburg University Press. Backus, A. (2011). Turkish as an immigrant language in Europe. In: T. K. Bhatia, & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd ed.) (pp. 770–790). Blackwell Publishing. Belfi, B., Goos, M., Pinxten, M., Verhaeghe, J. P., Gielen, S., De Fraine, B., & Van Damme, J. (2014). Inequality in language achievement growth? An investigation into the impact of pupil socio-ethnic background and school socio-ethnic composition. British Educational Research Journal, 40(5), 820–846. Bezcioglu-Goktolga, I., & Yagmur, K. (2018). The impact of Dutch teachers on family language policy of Turkish immigrant parents. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 31(3), 220–234. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1504392 Bezcioglu-Goktolga, ˙I. (2016). Home language skills of the third generation Turkish-Dutch bilingual children in the Netherlands. Journal of Language Education and Research, 2(3), 1–15. Boeschoten, H. (1990). Acquisition of Turkish by immigrant children. Otto Harrassowitz. Boeschoten, H. (2000). Convergence and divergence in migrant Turkish. In K. Mattheier (Ed.), Dialect and migration in a changing Europe (pp. 145–154). Peter Lang. Brabant, J. (1992). Une insertion économique problématique. Hommes Et Migrations, 1153, 34–38. Central Bureau Statistics. (2000). Jonge tweedegeneratie allochtonen [Young second generation immigrants]. CBS Report, No: 9, October. Crowley, H., & Hickman, M. J. (2008). Migration, postindustrialism and the globalised nation state: Social capital and social cohesion re-examined. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(4), 1–23. D’haeseleer, E., Smet, A. S., & Van Lierde, K. (2016). Expressive and receptive language skills in six yearold sequential bilingual Turkish-Dutch children compared to monolingual Dutch children in Flanders. Poster presented at the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics 30th World Congress. Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and secondlanguage learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 78–103. Echardour, A., & Maurin, E. (1993). La main d’œuvre étrangère. Données Sociales, 504–513. Extra, G., & Ya˘gmur, K. (Eds.). (2004). Urban multilingualism in Europe. Immigrant and minority languages at home and school. Multilingual Matters. Extra, G., & Yagmur, K. (2006). Immigrant minority languages at home and at school. European Education, 38(2), 50–63. Halman, T. S. (1980). Turks. In S. Thernstrom (Ed.), Harvard Encyclopedia of American ethnic groups (pp. 992–996). The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Van Heelsum, A., & Tillie, J. (1999). Turkse organisaties in Nederland: een netwerkanalyse (Turkish organizations in the Netherlands: A network analysis). Het Spinhuis. Hooghiemstra, E. (2003). Trouwen over de grens: Achtergronden van partnerkeuze van Turken en Marokkanen in Nederland [Marrying across the borders: Background of partner choice of Turkish and Moroccans in the Netherlands]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Karakasoglu, Y. (1996). Turkish cultural orientations in Germany and the role of Islam. In: D. Harrocks, & E. Kolinsky (Eds.), Migrants or citizens: Turks in Germany between exclusion or acceptance (pp. 157–176). Kastoryano, R. (2003). “Les Turcs d’Europe et leur désir d’Europe”. Cemoti, 36 (online journal). http://cemoti.revues.org/document1497.html Kö¸ser-Akçapar, S. ¸ (2009). Turkish highly skilled migration to the United States: New findings and policy recommendations. In: A. Içduygu, A., & K. Kiri¸sçi (Eds.), Land of diverse migrations: Challenges of emigration and immigration in Turkey. Bilgi University Press.

38

2 Socio-cultural, Demographic, Educational and Linguistic …

Küppers, A., Sim¸ ¸ sek, Y., & Schroeder, C. (2015). Turkish as a minority language in Germany: Aspects of language development and language instruction. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung, 26(1), 27–49. Marinis, T., & Ozge, D. (2010). Measuring the language abilities of Turkish-English bilingual children using TELD-3-T. In S. Topba¸s & M. Yava¸s (Eds.), Communication disorders in Turkish (pp. 482–502). Multilingual Matters. Pfaff, C. W. (2000). Development and use of et- and yap- by Turkish/German bilingual children. In A. Göksel & C. Kerslake (Eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages (pp. 365–373). Harrassowitz Verlag. Pfaff, C., Dollnick, M., & Herkenrath, A. (2017). Classroom and community support for Turkish in Germany. In: O.E. Kagan, M.M. Carreira, & C.H. Chik (Eds.), The handbook of heritage language education (pp. 423–437). Routledge. Riphahn, R. T. (2003). Cohort effects in the educational attainment of second-generation immigrants in Germany: An analysis of census data. Journal of Population Economics, 16, 711–737. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00148-003-0146-1 Smolicz, J. J. (1981). Core values and cultural identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4, 75–90. Söhn, J., & Özcan, V. (2006). The educational attainment of Turkish migrants in Germany. Turkish Studies, 1–18. Spolsky, B. (2016). The languages of diaspora and return. Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1(2–3), 1–119. Tribalat, M. (1995). Faire France. Une enquête sur les immigrés et leurs enfants. La Découverte (“Essais”). Türker, E. (2000). Turkish-Norwegian code switching. Evidence from intermediate and second generation Turkish immigrants in Norway. Unipub Forlag. U. S. Census Bureau. (2008). “Selected Population Profile in the United States, Population Group: Turkish (434).” https://www.census.gov/acs/. Last visited 2012. Yagmur, K. (2009). Language use and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish compared with the Dutch in The Netherlands. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(3), 19–33. Yagmur, K., & Akinci, M. A. (2003). Language use, choice, maintenance and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish speakers in France: Intergenerational differences. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 164, 107–128. Yagmur, K., & Nap-Kolhoff, E. M. (2010). Aspects of acquisition and disorders in Turkish-Dutch bilingual children. In S. Topbas & M. S. Yavas (Eds.), Communication disorders in Turkish in monolingual and multilingual settings (pp. 269–288). Multilingual Matters. Yagmur, K., & van de Vijver, F. (2012). Acculturation and language orientations of Turkish immigrants in Australia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(7), 1110–1130. Yagmur, K., & Colak-Bostanci, G. (2015). Intergenerational acculturation orientations of Turkish speakers in the USA. In D. Zeyrek, C. S. Simsek, U. Atas, & J. Rehbein (Eds.), Ankara papers in Turkish and Turkic linguistics (pp. 514–529). Harassowitz Verlag. Yagmur, K. (2016). Intergenerational language use and acculturation of Turkish speakers in four immigration contexts. Frankfurt am Main. Peter Lang. (Series: Language, multilingualism and social change, Vol. 27). Yagmur, K. (2017). Multilingualism in immigrant communities. In: J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, S. May (Eds.), Language awareness & multilingualism (3rd ed.) (pp. 1–15). Springer, Vol. Encyclopedia of Language and Education.

Chapter 3

Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA, Australia, France, Germany, and The Netherlands: The Impact of Receiving Country Policies on Acculturation Outcomes

3.1 Introduction In general terms, cultural and linguistic outcomes of intergroup contact is the subject matter of acculturation studies. In this chapter, the possible impact of integration policies of the USA, Australia, France, Germany and the Netherlands on the adaptation of Turkish immigrants is explored. Generally, a strong relationship between language behaviour and acculturation patterns of immigrants is assumed (Berry, 1997; Bourhis, 2001; Bourhis et al., 1997; Giles et al., 1977). In traditional acculturation studies, the focus falls on psychological adaptation and well-being of immigrants. Language practices receive very limited attention. The relationship between integration ideology of the receiving countries and the acculturation outcomes is not often researched. Yagmur and van de Vijver (2012) researched this crucial link and found a close correlation between receiving society integration ideologies and acculturation outcomes of Turkish immigrants in Australia, France, Germany and the Netherlands. As discussed in detail by Phalet and Baysu (2020), in traditional acculturation studies, researchers ask members of immigrant groups to report their individual orientations towards the heritage culture of their country of origin and towards the mainstream culture in their country of residence. In a bipolar design, researchers want to know if the immigrants want to maintain their heritage culture, or to adopt the mainstream culture, or to combine both cultures. Based on this basic question on individual acculturation orientations of immigrant informants, researchers try to predict individual differences in the adaptation of immigrant minorities (Dimitrova et al., 2016). Most acculturation studies follow Berry’s (1980) acculturation model. Based on two straightforward questions, whether the immigrant groups want to maintain their heritage language and culture and or whether they want to adopt the new culture and language, Berry suggests four possible outcomes of acculturation: integration, (heritage language and culture is maintained while the new culture and language is adopted), assimilation (the new culture and language is adopted fully while heritage language and culture is dropped), separation (in order to maintain the heritage language and culture, contact is avoided with the new language and culture) © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 K. Yagmur and F. J. R. van de Vijver, Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Acculturation in Turkish Immigrants, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94796-5_3

39

40

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

and finally, marginalisation (immigrant group avoids contact with both the heritage culture and with the mainstream culture). Based on Berry’s famous model, hundreds of studies all around the globe were conducted from indigenous groups (e.g., Maori ‘acculturation’ in New Zealand) to immigrant groups in the European or American context. In great majority of acculturation studies a strong ideological stance is noticed. As discussed in detail by Rudmin et al. (2017), there are many criticisms surrounding the conceptualization of acculturation and its hegemonic discourse. First of all, instead of investigating acculturation orientations of both the receiving society and the minority group members, the majority of the studies only investigates the minority groups’ acculturation orientations. The receiving group’s ideological orientations and acculturation conditions are crucial in fully documenting acculturation outcomes. In the next section, we will discuss the acculturation conditions and the receiving society’s approach and attitudes towards the minority groups.

3.2 How Important Are the Acculturation Orientations of the Host Groups? According to the conceptual model of acculturation research of Arends-Toth and van de Vijver (2006), in investigating acculturation orientations of minority groups, documenting the characteristics of the receiving society, characteristics of the society of origin, perceived intergroup relations and the personal characteristics of individuals who go through acculturation are important factors to be considered. Characteristics of the receiving society receives limited attention in the literature but the common attitude towards different minority groups, how these groups are portrayed in the media and the type of discourse used in politics and society are crucial factors influential on acculturation orientations of minority groups. The words and phrases used to identify immigrant minority groups and the semantic load of those terms show the prevalent mainstream attitude towards minority groups in most immigration contexts. Most of the terms used in public and official discourse regarding the ethnic minorities indicate a social hierarchy of groups and their languages. European Union takes a highly egalitarian perspective regarding different communities. However, even in most European Union documents, policy makers refer to national, regional/indigenous minority and immigrant minority languages. Even though all the national languages of the member states are equal in the European Union, some languages have higher social and symbolic prestige than some others. Regarding the regional/minority languages, there is a social and political hierarchy of these languages affected by the number of speakers, the political position in the countries they are spoken, the institutional support they have and so on. For instance, even though the local dialect/language spoken in Limburg is much more vital than Frisian (Extra et al., 2002), Frisian has a much stronger legal and political position in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, even if they are identified as regional minority languages, both Limburgish and Frisian would be seen as

3.2 How Important Are the Acculturation Orientations …

41

part of the Dutch national heritage. Turkish, Arabic and Berber are spoken by large numbers of immigrants in the Netherlands but their speakers are not considered as a part of the Dutch heritage because they are speakers of immigrant languages. Irrespective of the legal status of Dutch, Frisian, Limburgish, Turkish and Arabic, immigrant languages are placed lowest in the social hierarchy of languages in the Netherlands. The terms used to refer to immigrant minority languages highlight the external and non-territorial status of these groups. Some of the words and adjectives used to refer to immigrant groups might include homophobic epithets and metaphors. The Australian word ‘wog’, for instance, is a highly derogatory term used by Anglo-Australian immigrants to refer to other mainly non-European immigrants in Australia. According to the Macquarie Dictionary, the word ‘wog’ refers to a person of Mediterranean or Middle Eastern extraction, or of similar complexion and appearance (Macquarie Dictionary, 2003). Semantic load of stereotypical terms and adjectives to refer to immigrant minorities reflect the underlying attitudes towards these groups in all immigrant-receiving societies. In this section, we discuss the phenomenological issues and the resulting inter-ethnic boundary construction in the European context. Most of these terms serve to construct social boundaries between the immigrants and the host society members. Even after 60 years of workforce migration, individuals with an immigration heritage are still regarded as outsiders. Linguistic and cultural ‘integration’ discussions dominate the public discourse even more extensively in recent years. New waves of population movements take its toll on the well-established traditional immigrant groups as well. As documented recently by Spolsky (2016), migrant receiving European governments often considered the migrants as guest workers with a temporary status. Even after two generations, the third generation is still identified as ‘immigrant’. For instance, Piller (2001, p. 262) points out that “it is not uncommon to speak of “Auslaender in der dritten Generation,” ‘foreigners of the third generation’”, to refer to persons with an immigration heritage. The fact that the third-generation descendants of immigrants are still referred to as being the “foreigners” is the most telling for social inclusion/exclusion of immigrants in the European context. After sixty years of migration history, many migrant groups call themselves “diaspora” communities implying permanence in the host countries, however, this position is not shared by most immigrant receiving societies. The terms used to denote people with an immigration background show the extent of social exclusion of some immigrant groups. Examination of some terms show that there are strong social and psychological boundaries between the ‘mainstream’ groups and people with an immigration heritage. European public institutions, such as Eurostat and national Statistics Bureaus, keep detailed records of all Europeans; and immigrants receive special treatment. European countries construct sophisticated databases to identify the ‘non-European’ migrants. As documented by Kraler et al. (2015) host societies develop advanced procedures to make use of statistics to categorize the society into ethnic, national and linguistic groups. The Dutch government and public institutions use terms as autochtoon (autochthonous) to describe native Dutch to indicate indigenous, native and authentic, and allochtoon (allochthonous) to identify those

42

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

who are non-native, born elsewhere and basically outsiders. Even in small municipalities, the local population is presented as ‘autochthonous’ and ‘allochthonous’ that is further divided into western and non-western. The western category includes immigrants from European countries as well as people from Indonesia and Japan. On the other hand, non-western category includes Surinamese, Moroccan and Turkish immigrants. Apparently, this categorization is not based on geographical criterion because Japan is in the East of the Netherlands while Suriname is in the West of the Netherlands. Even the third-generation descendants of immigrant groups are registered with the birth-country of their grandparents. In the same vein, the children, who were born in The Netherlands and even when one parent was born in The Netherlands, would belong to the ‘other’ category. According to Weiner (2014), this terminology inhibits the social and cultural acceptance of non-European immigrants and they remain perceived as aliens even if they are second or third generation immigrants. As suggested by Schrover and Schinkel (2013) the situational, institutional and social contexts shape and affect discourses, and discourses influence social and political reality. The language of inclusion and exclusion is produced collectively in the Netherlands. Despite restrictions on access to citizenship as well as social exclusion, most migrant groups have stronger socio-cultural bonds with the host language and culture than what is imagined by policy-makers. Many migrants were born in the host countries and they belong to the third or fourth generation. The longer the descendants of migrants are identified as ‘the other’, the harder it is for the integration of these younger generations. Naming practices reflect deeply embedded notions of inclusion and exclusion. Who belongs and who does not is a complex matter that needs to be discussed in relation to citizenship, social-boundary construction, language and identity. As discussed in some detail in Yagmur and Extra (2011) the relationship between language and identity is complex and it has multiple dimensions. In all European nation-states the national language seems to be the main element of national belonging. As discussed in detail by Piller (2001) the notion of national belonging is a corner stone of almost all nation-states, and the national language is the main core value for its citizens. Historically, the national language carries more weight in multiethnic countries like France and Turkey, where it is claimed to unify people from all ethnolinguistic backgrounds. However, with the growing globalization phenomenon and the emergence of hyper-diversity (Piller & Takahashi, 2011, p. 379), the notion of one language—one state formulation is no longer valid in reality. In many policy papers and in public discourse, immigrant people are seen as outsiders who are not part of a European cultural heritage. When a person, who is born and raised as a member of third generation, is still identified as ‘immigrant’, this will have implications for the sense of belonging to the host community. Exclusion of immigrant groups have the most determining acculturation outcomes. As long as the notion of ‘outsiders’ is maintained in the mainstream public discourse, social and linguistic integration of immigrants will remain as problems.

3.3 Construction of Interethnic Boundaries

43

3.3 Construction of Interethnic Boundaries Piller and Takahashi (2011) discuss language as an instrument of social inclusion/exclusion in various immigration contexts. Similar to the acculturation discussions (acculturating into what?), they raise the critical ‘inclusion into what’ question. They argue that people from an immigrant background are expected to be included into some mythical mainstream (2011, p. 373). Based on evidence from different contexts, Piller and Takahashi argue that linguistic assimilation alone does not guarantee social inclusion of immigrants. In the European context, in spite of the widespread rhetoric of linguistic integration as an important vehicle of social inclusion, third and fourth generation persons with an immigration heritage are still identified as the ‘other’, being in need of integration. The assumption that linguistic assimilation is a key feature of social inclusion fails to account for the European-born younger generations, who, in many cases, have much higher linguistic competence in the national language of the host country than the heritage language of their ancestors. In the European context, the construction of inter-ethnic, social, cultural and religious boundaries leads to the otherization of second and even third generation of immigrants in the host societies. In many cases, the descendants of migrants want to identify with the host society (Yagmur & van de Vijver, 2012), however, the existing boundaries do not always allow it. As discussed in the next section, the process of social boundary construction between the mainstream community members and immigrant minority groups might provide insight into the social dynamics of group formation and ethnic identity. It is necessary to point out that both the majority and minority groups construct social boundaries mutually. Younger generations, especially the ones who identify the least with the heritage group, become victims of the already erected social and cultural boundaries. Based on various studies in the Netherlands, for instance, an existing social hierarchy has been shown in the minds of Dutch natives (Schalk-Soekar et al., 2004). On the basis of Schalk-Soekar et al.’s (2004) findings, Turks and Moroccans emerge as the most different from the Dutch majority. Potential markers for boundary-construction are not only ethnicity, but for example citizenship, religion and language (Alba, 2005). In the essentialist approaches to identity and ethnicity, the differences between groups are perceived along markers such as language or skin colour. In a way, these visible or invisible differences construct the social and cultural boundaries between the groups. Nevertheless, for social constructivists like Brubaker (2004) boundaries are not a static concept, but social, cultural, political and psychological processes transforming categories into groups. Migration is taking new forms as diverse cultural, ethnic, racial, religious, and language groups move between borders much more freely; especially in the EU people move frequently across national borders. Not only indigenous populations but also immigrant populations seek employment beyond national borders within the EU, which leads to increasing transnationalism. As the immigrant-receiving societies become more and more diverse, nation-states need to find acceptable ways of dealing with this diversity, which presents a challenge to public and educational institutions.

44

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

Most nation-states in the EU are reluctant to consider themselves multicultural societies. In some EU countries the explicit goal is the assimilation of newcomers. In France, for instance, if immigrants want to be full citizens they need to linguistically assimilate into the mainstream society. Members of minority groups are required to surrender their languages and cultures in order to become full citizens (Archibald, 2002; Castles, 2004). As reported by Helot and Young (2002), similar to most European teachers, many French teachers still believe that speaking an immigrant language at home delays the acquisition of French (and consequently integration into French society). Such teachers are not aware of the research on cognitive theories of bilingualism and the curriculum, which has demonstrated the importance of maintaining the home language for the development of the school language (De Angelis, 2011; Bezcioglu-Goktolga and Yagmur, 2018). Increasing terrorist attacks of Al Qaeda and ISIS in Belgium, France, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom, have led to ethnicization of Islam in Europe. Considering the religious background of most of the terrorists involved in attacks against humanity, the mainstream public began identifying them as ‘Muslim terrorists’ irrespective of their ethnic heritage. Until early 1990s immigrant groups were identified with their ethnic backgrounds, such as Moroccan, Turkish, or Afghan. The term “Muslim” was rarely used to refer to immigrants coming from Morocco or Turkey. After the1990’s Moroccan and Turkish immigrants were linked to Islamic religion in public representation and in media coverage. According to Shadid (2006), the reasons for this late association should be looked for in the national and international developments in which Islam played a central role. Shadid reports, firstly, the incidents associated with Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses book. Secondly, he points to the fact that most Muslim immigrants built mosques and established Islamic schools throughout European countries. These national developments made a Muslim cultural infrastructure in Europe quite visible, which in turn made Muslim immigrants’ religious identification more comprehensible but also controversial due to terrorist attacks. According to Vasta (2006) some other recent events contributed to the spread of Islamophobia particularly in the Netherlands. Populist politician Pim Fortuyn claimed that the Netherlands had too many immigrants and that Islam was a backward religion. Matters escalated even further when film-maker Theo Van Gogh was murdered in 2004. Van Gogh was famous for a film on Muslim women and domestic violence, as well as for his polemics against Islam. These events have fuelled perceptions of a split between immigrant Muslims and the ‘native Dutch’ over basic democratic values such as freedom of speech and the position of women in Muslim communities. Shadid (2006) accurately argues that such developments contributed to ethnicization and politicization of Muslims in the Netherlands. Irrespective of the religious practice or affiliation with Islam, all people coming from Afghanistan, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, or Turkey were identified as Muslim. Shadid (2006: 15) claims that “positioning them as religious groups in a secular society where religion does not play an important role in public life provides fertile soil for stereotyping of such groups as religiously zealous and fanatical.” International developments such as 9/11 and the rise of political Islam had serious implications for immigrants coming from Islamic countries. It of course needs to be pointed out that certain radical Islamic

3.3 Construction of Interethnic Boundaries

45

groups found breeding ground among the second-generation Muslim youth, which further escalated the tension between mainstream community and the immigrants. Various politicians, publicists, scientists, and journalists often point to activities and criminal incidents associated with Muslim youngsters as proof of the incompatibility of Islam and the Western culture. By constantly labelling these groups of immigrants by their ascribed religious identity, an ‘us’ and ‘them’ distinction is reinforced and, as a result, they are more and more excluded from the mainstream society leading to hardened inter-ethnic group boundaries. In order to understand the dynamics of boundary construction between mainstream society members and the immigrants, it is important to examine the literature on inter-ethnic boundary construction. Wimmer (2009) proposes that boundaries between ethnic groups are the result of social processes of closure and distancing along markers perceived as relevant by the groups between which the boundary is erected, rather than a phenomenon occurring naturally in the society. Policy makers, opinion leaders in the society, politicians, and the media jointly re-construct the discourse on immigration and related issues; consequently, new socio-cultural boundaries are created. For instance, in the Netherlands the public discourse and the accompanying social boundaries (mental walls) are too insurmountable for the low-skilled, unemployed and religiously different immigrants. In line with the changing socio-political conditions, migrant belonging is redefined and new social, cultural, linguistic and political boundaries are constructed. On the basis of the characteristics of each immigrant group (as perceived by the mainstream community members), public institutions and opinion leaders define boundaries of belonging; as a result of which, desired and less desired immigrant groups emerge. Various studies in the Netherlands reveal an existing social hierarchy where Turkish and Moroccan immigrants are considered the most culturally different from the Dutch majority (Schalk-Soekar et al., 2004). This perception of difference limits the inter-ethnic and social contact between these groups. Max Weber (1978) described the ethnic group as an artificial social construct and defined ethnicity as a subjective sense of belonging, instead of a feature inherent in the cultural world. Moreover, Weber (1978) sees ethnicity as a way of establishing boundaries between people and consequently creating social groups, since “ethnic membership does not constitute a group; it only facilitates group formation of any kind” (p. 389). Pierre Bourdieu (2000) confirms Barth’s (1969) idea of social construction and expands it from ethnic groups to all groups in general. He states that the world around us is not self-evident but “the product and the stake of inseparably cognitive and political symbolic struggles over knowledge and recognition” (p. 187). Through these struggles, social reality is constructed including the creation of group boundaries. These perceived symbolic boundaries between groups manifest as social boundaries. Unlike symbolic boundaries, which are perceived differences between people used to categorize them into groups and lead to feelings of membership and similarity, social boundaries are a manifestation of those differentiations resulting, for example, in unequal access to resources or social opportunities. Only when groups agree about the symbolic boundaries can social ones exist and lead to exclusion and segregation (Lamont & Molnár, 2002). Thus, boundaries between

46

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

groups are not based on the differentiation between different people, but rather on their belief of being different from each other.

3.4 Language Maintenance and Acculturation Orientations It is generally assumed that the stronger the social integration of minority group members, the higher the linguistic shift to the mainstream language. Alternatively, the least social and linguistic integration is associated with high language maintenance (LM) patterns. Minority language use is to be seen as a form of social behaviour, linked to other forms of social action (Fishman, 2003). Unless language use is studied as part of macro-social processes, the overall social mechanisms and dynamics influential on outcomes such as language maintenance and shift can be overlooked. Language use is generally gauged through surveys and ethnographic studies. Conducting only survey studies might not help identifying the whole range of social processes and dynamics involved in language behaviour. Similarly, using ethnographic methods alone provides evidence for observable patterns of situated social behaviour of a few informants. To obtain more valid research results, complementary types of data are necessary. Maintenance of ancestral languages does not necessarily mean defying social and linguistic integration into the mainstream society. All over the world, people want to gain access to better jobs, better opportunities, and better schooling, all of which require a good command of the mainstream language. In researching the macro and micro-linguistic factors involved in language maintenance and shift, the relative weights of the mainstream language and the ancestral language in expressing socio-cultural identity, in conveying communicative value in different social domains, and in constituting symbolic meaning need to be understood. In general, if a language has managed to create its own linguistic marketplace, it is most likely that speakers will go on using it in certain domains. Nonetheless, not all immigrants make the same linguistic choices. For an effective investigation, there needs to be a distinction between different social sub-groups and generations of immigrants. Furthermore, given the interactive nature of language contact situations, the effects of the receiving societies’ attitudes and policies concerning acculturation of immigrants need to be identified as well. In order to explore the relationship between state policies and immigrants’ integration patterns, Turkish immigrants’ intergenerational language use and attitudes towards multilingualism in four national contexts are examined in this book. One of the basic premises of this cross-national acculturation research is that linguistic and cultural integration is not one-sided; rather acculturation orientations and language policies of the receiving societies have an effect on language use and integration patterns of minority groups. State integration policies consist of approaches and measures adopted by state agencies to help immigrants integrate within the host society. Integration policies can also include measures to enhance host community acceptance of immigrants. In this study, a strong relationship between acculturation orientations of minority group members and their language use patterns

3.4 Language Maintenance and Acculturation Orientations

47

is assumed. Bourhis (2001) claims that as a result of the interaction between mainstream and minority acculturation orientations, there can be consensual, problematic or conflictual relational outcomes. When the minority group members adopt the linguistic and cultural identity of the dominant majority while retaining their own linguistic and cultural identity, they integrate into the mainstream society successfully. If the host society agrees with the integration of the minority, then there is consensus between the groups. However, if the host asks for full linguistic and cultural assimilation and the minority is against assimilation, then the outcome is problematic in terms of intergroup relations. If the majority group is segregationist against the minority, then, irrespective of the minority group’s acculturation orientation, the situation is conflictual. Bauböck et al. (1996) identified four clusters of state ideologies shaping integration and language policies of immigrant-receiving societies. These are pluralist, civic, assimilationist, and ethnist ideologies. This static categorisation has certain limitations because in line with social conditions, policies and attitudes change as well. The research outcomes presented here will enable the assessment of the accuracy of this hypothetical clustering. The above categorisation is based on the receiving societies’ state ideologies and is unidimensional, which suggests a process of cultural orientation on behalf of minority groups from cultural maintenance to full assimilation into the mainstream culture. However, acculturation processes are not one-sided and the attitudes of majority groups are as important as the minority’s, which led to the construction of a bi-dimensional model of acculturation (Berry, 1997). This model postulates that the combination of majority and minority strategies results in four acculturation strategies: integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalisation (Arends-Tóth, 2003; Bourhis et al., 1997; Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002). The integration strategy reflects a desire to maintain the core values of the minority culture while also adopting the norms and values of the host society. Assimilation takes place when maintenance of the minority culture is seen as unnecessary while adaptation to the mainstream culture has utmost priority. The separation strategy reflects maintenance of ethnic values and language, while rejecting the culture of the host society. Marginalisation refers to a rejection of both the immigrant and the host culture. In order to reflect on the state ideologies and their possible effects on acculturation strategies of minority groups, having the same ethnolinguistic group in four different contexts belonging to different ideological clusters would yield highly relevant results. By using the Interactive Acculturation Model of Bourhis et al. (1997), Turkish immigrant and mainstream group acculturation orientations, as possible determinants of language maintenance and shift, can be identified. The possible connection between intergenerational cultural change and ongoing language shift can be established. In many studies and models on acculturation, culture is treated as a homogeneous entity. It is most basically defined as a process moving from one set of cultural habits and behaviour to another culture. As indicated earlier, in his acculturation model, Berry (1997) proposed a bi-dimensional model of acculturation in which two ‘cultures’ are shown to be either competing or complying with each other in the same person. Berry thinks that when people move into a new cultural context

48

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

they bring along their heritage culture with them. In the new cultural context, there might be four strategies that the new migrant might choose from. They might decide to distance themselves from their cultural heritage and decide to adopt the new culture; this would be identified as assimilation in Berry’s model. The person might decide to keep their heritage culture and at the same time adapt the new culture as well; then this would be identified as integration. The person might fail to adapt the new culture and fully hold on to the heritage culture, in which case this would be identified as separation. As a fourth strategy, the person might decide to distance him/herself from the heritage culture and at the same time might fail to adapt the new culture or (deliberately) might distance him/herself from the new culture, then this would be identified as marginalisation. Considerable cross-cultural research has used this model as the conceptual framework in numerous investigations. Intrapersonal, interpersonal and intergroup processes are too complex to be confined to such four rigid categories.

3.5 A Widely Researched-Group: Turkish Immigrants Turkish workforce migration to western countries has been continuing for the last 60 years. Initially, people living mostly in the rural areas of Turkey, started migrating to Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Australia and to other European countries. For the majority of the Turkish immigrants, a culture shock was inevitable because many of these migrants had left their villages for the first time in their lives. When immigrants are in a new country, they first have to learn the language so that they can join the workforce. However, in the case of Turkish immigrants, they were given jobs, which required no language skills at all. They worked mostly as process line workers and laborers. In the first decade of the migration, most of the immigrant workers, especially in Germany, stayed in dormitories for workers. This led to a total isolation of immigrant workers in the mainstream society. Apart from the ordinary changes in life style, working conditions, food, climate, and so on, the process of adaptation to new social setting, and integration problems were some of the core issues that faced Turkish immigrants in Western Europe. As Turkish immigrant group comes from a different social and religious background, the conflict or misunderstandings between the mainstream European groups and the Turkish group was magnified. In spite of the ongoing problems of immigration, most Turkish people are successfully settled in their countries of destination. Now, we talk about around 5 million Turkish speakers in the European countries. In a world of super diversity and globalization, third and fourth generation Turks have a totally different outlook and potential compared to the first generation immigrants. Nevertheless, many young Turkish immigrants are faced with educational problems, unemployment, discrimination and social exclusion. In this chapter, socio-cultural integration patterns of Turkish immigrants in five different countries are presented. Language maintenance and shift patterns, as well

3.5 A Widely Researched-Group: Turkish Immigrants

49

as identity perceptions of first and second-generation immigrants in Australia, USA, France, Germany and the Netherlands are discussed.

3.6 Changing Cultural Values Immigrant receiving societies are interested in the integration patterns of their residents coming from different cultural backgrounds. Most of these countries hold a population census every five years and include multiple questions on identity and linguistic practices of the residents in the census questionnaire. In a similar fashion, some scientists working in various disciplines such as anthropology, cross-cultural psychology and sociolinguistics, are interested in the linguistic and cultural contact between various groups. Sociolinguists and cross-cultural psychologists are particularly interested in acculturation orientations of immigrant groups. Acculturation refers to the process of adaptation along two dimensions: (a) adoption of ideals, values, and behaviors of the receiving culture, and (b) retention of ideals, values, and beliefs from the culture of origin (Phinney et al., 2001). In this paper, on the basis of the findings obtained from Turkish immigrants in the USA, results are presented on both adoption of American values and the retention of Turkish values and linguistic practices. Sociolinguistic studies have examined the linguistic consequences of immigration. Language maintenance or shift emerges as a result of language contact. The type of interaction between the majority and minority language speakers influences the linguistic outcome. There are a number of models in the sociolinguistic literature for the investigation of language maintenance and shift as documented by Clyne (1991). Models developed by Bourdieu (1982), Edwards (1992), Giles et al. (1977), and Smolicz (1981), identify various factors that are important in language maintenance (or shift). These factors are usually divided into two related categories: those affecting a speech community and those affecting individuals within a speech community (Kipp et al., 1995). Group factors include size and distribution of an ethnic group, the policy of the host community towards minority languages, the position of the language within the cultural value system of the group, and proximity or distance of the minority language to or from the majority language. Birthplace, age, period of residence, gender, education, marriage patterns, prior knowledge of majority language, reason for migration, and language variety are considered to be relevant individual factors (Kipp et al., 1995, p. 123). We might add factors at the individual level such as language choice and socialization patterns, the interaction of which varies quite fundamentally across linguistic contexts. Different speech communities or individuals can behave in different ways under similar circumstances. Retention of the heritage language is more likely when the ethnic group is larger, is more concentrated in certain areas, and the heritage language is held in higher esteem by its speakers. It has been suggested that “a minority group that possesses a publicly stigmatized identity, that has few legislative means at its disposal with which to secure its interests, that lives in a society characterized by an assimilatory ideology,

50

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

and that is disadvantaged in relation to the majority with respect to economic and educational resources, could be expected to be less likely to maintain its language over time” (Hyltenstam & Stroud, 1996, pp. 569–570). The type of interaction between the minority and the majority is another factor to be considered. One of the basic premises of the present study is that language maintenance, shift, and loss of minority groups do not occur in a political and social vacuum; acculturation orientations of the immigrant groups and language policies of the receiving societies have an effect on language use and adaptation patterns. A stronger ethnic orientation is taken to be accompanied by more ethnic language retention and a more positive attitude toward the language. The social function of language is regarded as a mechanism of social integration in the acculturation process. A close analysis of language from the perspective of sociology of language and sociolinguistics can give a detailed account of the role of language in social interaction and in the construction of ethnicity in the acculturation of immigrants (Koenig, 1999). By means of its communicative and symbolic function, language contributes to social integration of immigrants; in addition, language can be an important part of heritage identity. Psychological studies have addressed the role of proficiency in the host language for sociocultural adjustment (e.g., Masgoret & Ward, 2006; Vedder & Horenczyk, 2006). Positive relations have been reported between host language proficiency, sociocultural adjustment, and host identity across various western societies (Ataca & Berry, 2002; Clément et al., 2001; Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2008; Ward & Kennedy, 1993). The association may be generated by multiple pathways, most notably the opportunity to become acquainted with the host culture, establish relationships with mainstreamers, identify with the host group, and access important resources of the new host culture, such as school and job opportunities. Proficiency in the heritage language has often been studied in relation to ethnic identity. The pathways through which ethnic language is related to adjustment to the ethnic culture are identical to those of the mainstream language just mentioned (access to the culture, networks, and resources). Yet, the role of ethnic language in acculturation is more ambiguous than the role of the host language. There are two opposing views on the role of ethnic language. On the one hand, knowledge of the heritage language can help to maintain the immigrant’s ties with the ethnic culture, which in turn can facilitate psychological adjustment (Virta et al., 2004). The stronger roots in the ethnic culture may facilitate sociocultural adjustment through ethnic community resources (also known as social and cultural capital) and may also facilitate adjustment to the host culture (Ait Ouarasse & van de Vijver, 2004; Phinney et al., 2001). For example, Fuligni et al. (2008) emphasize the role of knowledge of the heritage language in Asian and Latin American adolescents in the US to explore their ethnic roots and to have a sense of belonging to the culture of their ancestors. Knowledge of the heritage language is not taken to impede participation in U.S. society. On the other hand, there are studies in which knowledge of the host and heritage cultures (and accompanying identities) show opposite patterns. Clément and Noels (1992) found that more knowledge of the mainstream language and stronger

3.6 Changing Cultural Values

51

ingroup feelings toward the majority were accompanied by a loss of knowledge of the heritage culture and a weaker ethnic identity. The common model of language assimilation, developed in the US, is the threegeneration model of language assimilation: “The immigrant generation makes some progress but remains dominant in their native tongue, the second generation is bilingual, and the third generation speaks English only” (Waters & Jiménez, 2005, p. 110). The model generally is in line with empirical data, which show immigrant groups to shift to the mainstream language within three or four generations (Gonzo & Saltarelli, 1983); yet, the model does not deal with the considerable variation across ethnic groups in speed of language assimilation. For example, Turkish immigrants are often able to maintain their language better across generations than predicted by the model (Extra & Yagmur, 2004), whereas Dutch immigrants to Australia and New Zealand showed much quicker language shift (Clyne, 1992). The second source of vagueness has to do with identity. Language use is an important behavioural marker of ethnic identity (Ashmore et al., 2004), but ethnic groups differ considerably in the symbolic value they attach to the heritage language. Whereas the Turkish language is viewed as a core marker of identity among Turkish immigrants in western Europe (Extra et al., 2004), speaking Berber is less central to the ethnic identity of Moroccan immigrants in the same countries; religion is a more important marker of their ethnic identity. As a consequence, the role of the ethnic language in the process of acculturation can differ across immigrant groups. Given the assimilation ideology of the United States, immigrants are expected to drop ancestral cultural heritage and adopt the norms and values of the mainstream American society. Linguistic and cultural assimilation take place at different degrees for various groups. Australia shows a rather pluralistic approach to cultural maintenance of immigrants. European countries, on the other hand, mostly are against the maintenance of mother tongue and cultural values of Turkish immigrants. In the following section, five host countries’ immigrant integration ideologies are discussed.

3.7 Multiculturalism Ideologies in the Five Countries As briefly discussed earlier, four clusters of state ideologies shaping integration and language policies of immigrant receiving societies are identified (Bourhis et al., 1997; Koenig, 1999). This ideological clustering model distinguishes pluralist, civic, assimilationist, and ethnist ideologies. In the pluralist ideology, the state provides support for language classes and cultural activities to promote mother tongue maintenance alongside second language proficiency. Maintenance of ethnic group norms and values is accepted. A civic ideology expects that immigrants will adopt the public values of the mainstream society. The state neither interferes with the private values of its citizens nor provides any provisions for the maintenance or promotion of linguistic or cultural values of minorities. An assimilation ideology expects linguistic and cultural assimilation into the mainstream society. In the name of homogenization of the society, assimilationist language policies aim at accelerating language shift.

52

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

An ethnist ideology shares most aspects of assimilation ideology; yet, there are ideological and institutional barriers for immigrant minorities to be accepted legally or socially as full members of the mainstream society. Naturalization laws are helpful for distinguishing ethnist ideologies. The principle of ius sanguinis underlies acquisition of citizenship in such countries, for instance, the ethnic Germans, so called Aussiedler, could immigrate to Germany as they were recognized as having German ‘blood’. On the basis of the state ideologies briefly described here, Australia, The Netherlands, France—USA, and Germany broadly fit the four clusters of pluralist, civic, assimilationist, and ethnist ideologies, respectively. This should not be seen as a static categorization. In line with social developments in a society, especially in times of economic crises, there can be shifts in ideologies as well.

3.7.1 Australia In terms of four clusters of state ideologies, Australia is shown to have a pluralistic model (Van Oudenhoven et al., 2006). Australia is an immigration country and even though some surveys and opinion polls show widespread support for cultural pluralism in Australia, public opinion regarding multiculturalism and cultural diversity is ambivalent, especially concerning some non-European immigrant groups (Dandy & Pe-Pua, 2010). Nevertheless, Australia has an official policy of multiculturalism and cultural diversity is valued. The state provides funds and facilities for the maintenance of heritage languages and cultures of the immigrants. Among the Australian born immigrants the desire to identify with Australia and even to assimilate into (Anglo-)Australian culture is high. Based on earlier studies of Turkish immigrants in Australia, it is clear that especially the second-generation Turks identify strongly with Australia (Yagmur, 1997). In line with the pluralistic policies of Australia, strong first language maintenance and successful sociocultural integration would be expected for different generations of Turkish immigrants.

3.7.2 France Like many other West European countries, the nation-state ideology and maintenance of nationhood rooted in a commonly shared notion of cultural unity underlies French language policies (Archibald, 2002). Rather than promoting linguistic and cultural pluralism, French policies explicitly opt for integration and linguistic assimilation of immigrants. A Commission on Nationality was set up in 1987 to transform immigrants into French nationals. The Commission took a number of measures to develop the legal framework for achieving the assimilation of immigrants into the mainstream society (Lapeyronnie, 1990, cited in Archibald, 2002). Mastery of French was seen to be the most fundamental aspect of the acculturation process, because language is considered to be the overarching value to achieve social cohesion and national

3.7 Multiculturalism Ideologies in the Five Countries

53

unity in France. Given the circumstances, one would hardly expect first language maintenance among younger immigrants. However, studies on Turkish immigrants have reported relatively low levels of linguistic and cultural assimilation (Rollan & Sourou, 2006; Tribalat, 1995; Yagmur & Akinci, 2003).

3.7.3 USA Just like France, the USA holds onto melting-pot ideology, in which immigrants are expected to linguistically and culturally assimilate into the American society. Compared to Turkish immigrants in the European countries, educational and professional profile of Turkish-Americans is considerably different. In European countries, Turks are characterized as being lowly educated, having high unemployment rates and large school dropout rates among the younger generations. Compared to the mainstream American population, Turkish immigrants have much higher educational qualifications.

3.7.4 The Netherlands Issues of integration, unemployment, school dropouts, and criminality are associated with immigrant groups in the media in the Netherlands. Even though such media representation may be poorly founded, Brands et al. (1998) suggest that the groups that are associated with problems mostly happen to be Turkish and Moroccan in the media. The prevalent attitude in the Netherlands is against the maintenance of immigrant minority languages. Even in times of solid policies promoting multiculturalism in the early 90s, Extra and Verhoeven (1993) indicated that: “It is a common Dutch attitude that ethnic minority families should give up their home language and should switch to Dutch, and that ethnic minority children should spend all their energy on second language learning instead of wasting time on first language maintenance. In this conception, multilingualism is seen as a problem, not a resource” (pp. 22–23). After a long period of support for integration both among policy makers and the public, Dutch policy makers’ approach is currently identified as “assimilationist” (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2003; Van Oudenhoven et al., 1998, 2006). In this respect, the current trend in the Netherlands is highly similar to the “English only movement” in the US (Barker et al., 2001). Just as in this movement, the Dutch-only tendency aims at limiting the use, maintenance, promotion, and salience of immigrant minority languages. The Netherlands is characterized by civic nationalism.

54

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

3.7.5 Germany The distinction between civic and ethnic nations is one of the most common categorizations in the study of interethnic relations (Bourhis et al., 1997; Koenig, 1999). In this ideological clustering, ethnic (cultural) nations are based on common heritage, language, national territory, religion, customs, and history, whereas civic nations are based on a historic territory, laws and institutions, the legal and political equality of all citizens. The ethnic nation is based on a common descent; a common language and customs are the key elements of the ethnic nation. The ideology of monolingualism is very strong in the ethnic state. Koenig (1999) suggests that the ethnic nation state has been based on policies of homogenizing culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Germany is identified as a typical ethnic nation encouraging monolingualism among the people in its territory (Bourhis et al., 1997). In this respect, the sociocultural distance between the mainstream German and immigrant Turkish is expected to be large. Germany has ethnic nationalism. The ethnic-civic division is relevant for our research. Whereas civic conceptions of nationhood promote interethnic tolerance and a positive attitude towards immigrants, ethnic definitions of the nation are seen as contributing to xenophobia and racism (Janmaat, 2006). Even though Dutch policies are shown to fit civic nationalism, integration policies require the subordination of ethnic loyalties to the dominant mainstream culture and national identity in order to achieve full citizenship in the mainstream society (Phalet & Kosic, 2006).

3.8 Methodological Novelty in Acculturation Research A large amount of research on acculturation was conducted in immigrant-receiving societies in the last five decades. To obtain representative and accurate results, methodological issues are important in acculturation research. The novelty of the current investigation presented in this chapter is its interdisciplinary approach to acculturation research. Cross-cultural psychological research dominated the field of acculturation research so far. Language is intertwined with cultural identity. Sociolinguists work on the sociology of language and language contact. In this respect, an interdisciplinary design can contribute new methodological tools to acculturation research. Without a thorough understanding of language use, choice and attitudes of immigrant groups, documenting acculturation orientations would be incomplete. This study combines the methodological tools of cross-cultural psychology and sociolinguistics in an interdisciplinary approach. Based on van de Vijver et al. (2016) discussion, a brief discussion of methodological issues is presented in this section. Methodological choices have important implications for the results obtained in acculturation studies. Data collection instruments and tools as well as the design (methodological approach, the types of informants, data collection procedures and so on) are significant considerations in acculturation research. As indicated by van de

3.8 Methodological Novelty in Acculturation Research

55

Vijver et al. (2016) acculturation research has diversified in the last 30 years. Most prototypical acculturation studies examined a single ethnic group that had moved to another country. Comparison of multiple immigrant groups in the same national context is another common approach. Yagmur and van de Vijver (2012) introduced a novel approach to the study of acculturation by comparing the acculturation orientations of the same ethnic group in multiple countries to examine the impact of host society policies on acculturation orientations (and outcomes). As depicted in Fig. 3.1, in researching acculturation orientations and outcomes of immigrant groups, a number of factors need to be taken into consideration. First of all, the contextual factors such as the characteristics of the receiving society, policies and regulations regarding immigrant integration, and the cultural as well as linguistic difference between the host and the immigrant groups should be examined. Researchers investigate acculturation process at two distinct levels by focusing on the cultural group and the individual. In order to understand the intergroup dynamics, focusing on the group is necessary; however, the risk is sometimes overgeneralization based on inadequate sampling. Nevertheless, to examine the impact of host society policies on the acculturation orientations of immigrant groups, focusing on the cultural group is inevitable.

Fig. 3.1 A conceptual model of acculturation framework (Adapted from Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2006)

56

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

In understanding acculturation process of immigrant groups, acculturation conditions, acculturation orientations and outcomes need to be documented. As shown in Fig. 3.1, the acculturation conditions describe the circumstances and the context of the acculturation process, including characteristics of the heritage culture and host culture (cultural distance), and characteristics of the immigrant groups (identification with the ethnic group and heritage language). Ethnic group strategies and orientations alone cannot explain the individual acculturation strategies. Levels of social inclusion and diversity policies of the host society have considerable impact on acculturation orientations of immigrant groups and individuals. In our research, the sole reason for comparing and contrasting acculturation orientations of Turkish immigrants in five national contexts is to document the impact of host society conditions on acculturation orientations and outcomes.

3.9 Method By means of a large-scale study conducted in Australia, USA, France, Germany and the Netherlands the data were collected. The data were entered into a statistical package (SPSS Version 19) program and analyzed statistically. In this paper, based on descriptive statistics, the main characteristics of the Turkish immigrants in these five countries are discussed.

3.9.1 Participants The total sample comprised 1,474 informants. These participants included persons residing in Australia (n = 283), USA (n = 395), France (n = 266), Germany (n = 265), and the Netherlands (n = 271). The educational level was quite diverse, ranging from primary education certificate (17.7%) and upper secondary level (39.1%) to tertiary education (43.2%). A gender split for each country is presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Gender distribution of informants for each country

Country

Female

Male

Total

Australia

127

156

283

USA

178

211

389

France

135

131

266

Germany

140

125

265

The Netherlands

173

98

271

Total

753

721

1474

3.9 Method

57

3.9.2 Measures The scales, comprising 212 questions, are primarily based on the studies by ArendsTóth (2003), Kang (2006), Phinney (1990), Verkuyten (2007), and Yagmur (1997). The biographical section included 12 questions on topics such as age, gender, marital status, birth country of the respondent and parent of the respondent (if married partner’s country of birth as well), number of years in the immigration country, place of residence, highest diploma obtained, profession, and frequency of visits to Turkey. The Multicultural Ideology Scale consists of ten questions designed to assess attitudes towards linguistic and cultural diversity. The scale is based on Berry and Kalin’s (1995) instrument which was used among Turkish-Dutch informants by ArendsTóth (2003). An example of an item on pluralism is “ people should recognize that the society consists of groups with different cultural backgrounds” (“Australian” was replaced by the corresponding adjective in other countries); an example of an item about language maintenance is “Ethnic minorities should be helped to preserve their cultural heritage in ”. Answers were given on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The Ethnic and Mainstream Identification Scale consists of 21 questions designed to assess feeling of having ethnic and mainstream identity. The questions in this section are related to cultural, linguistic, social, ethnic, and religious components of ethnic identification. Examples of items are “I feel Turkish because I speak Turkish, (I am a Muslim, etc.)” and “I feel because I speak English (I know mentality, etc.)”. The Ethnic and Mainstream Identity Scale consists of 17 questions designed to assess orientation to Turkish and mainstream identity. All of the questions have an endorsement format, which asks participants to rate each statement in terms of how strongly they agree or disagree with it. Examples are: “I am proud that I am a Turk” and “I am happy that I am .” The section ended with the question, “All in all, do you feel more Turkish or more ,” having a 5-point Likert scale: only Turkish (1) to only Australian (5). The Ethnic and Mainstream Behavior Scale consists of 22 endorsement format questions designed to assess (a) attitudes toward ethnic and mainstream cultures; (b) affiliation with respective cultural groups; (c) preferences with regard to food, music, activities, and media. The participants are asked to rate each statement in terms of how strongly they agree or disagree with, for instance, “I live in accordance with Turkish cultural norms and values” and “I live in accordance with cultural norms and values.” The Islamic Beliefs Scale consists of 18 questions designed to assess the extent of religious identification. Both symbolic identification and observance of religious practices were assessed. Examples of items are “I am a Muslim,” “I know Islamic rules very well,” and “I fast during Ramadan.”

58

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

The Ethnic and Mainstream Social Network Scale consists of 23 endorsement type questions designed to assess the structure of social networks of the informants, such as (a) spare time activities, (b) type of social interaction in the neighborhood, (c) degree of contact with the ethnic and mainstream friends. The participants are asked to rate each statement in terms of how strongly they agree or disagree with, for instance, “There are many Turks in the suburb I live,” “When I have personal problems, I share it with my Turkish friends.” All the questions in this section are rated on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The section ends with the question “All in all, are you more in contact with the Turkish or with the people?” which has a five-point response scale: only Turkish (1) to only (5). The Ethnic and Mainstream Cultural Norms Scale consists of 19 endorsement type questions designed to assess the attitudes of the informants regarding (a) Turkish/Mainstream norms and values, (b) vitality of respective groups, (c) degree of institutional support for cultural maintenance, (d) degree of exclusion experienced in the mainstream community. The participants are asked to rate each statement in terms of how strongly they agree or disagree with; examples are “The Turks in can act together as a group” and “ people usually think negatively about the Turks.” The Language Use, Choice and Preference Scale consists of 50 questions in 5 subsections on: language register spoken with different interlocutors, such as mother, father and siblings, language register spoken to informant, language use, language preference, and language choice across topics. The participants are asked to respond to language use or choice questions in a bipolar scale format, for instance: “In which language do you interact mostly with your mother?” The responses are indicated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from always (1) to always Turkish (5). The benefits of using bipolar formats in such research are discussed extensively by Kang (2006). The Attitudes to Turkish Language Scale consists of 20 questions designed to assess attitudes towards Turkish language in various domains. The participants are asked to respond to each question in terms of how strongly they value Turkish language, for instance, “How important is Turkish to find a job?,” “How important is Turkish to rear children?” All the questions in this section are rated on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from not important (1) to very important (5). All scales with the exception of the language scales contained a mix of negatively and positively worded items. Item presentation was randomly rotated within scales.

3.9.3 Procedure Accessing Turkish communities in the five national contexts was achieved with the help of Turkish cultural organizations. In all national contexts, the section on religious identity was found to be highly personal (and sensitive) and a number of informants refused to fill that part in.

3.9 Method

59

Questionnaires were prepared in both Turkish and the mainstream language of the immigration context given the expected differences in language proficiency of different generations (See the survey questionnaire used in the end of this chapter). As expected most second-generation filled in the questionnaires prepared in the mainstream language. Internet technology was also used by offering the questionnaire online. Some informants used online version of the questionnaire in the Netherlands, France, USA and Australia. Analyses did not reveal significant effects of administration mode on target variables; therefore, data of the two modes were merged.

3.10 Results For the purpose of this book, the statistical procedures and the full details of the analyses are not included in this chapter. For full details see Yagmur (2016). Given the large numbers of questions, only the results on a scale basis are reported here. For all the scales, named as ‘Feeling Turkish; Feeling Mainstream; Turkish Identity; Mainstream Identity; Turkish Behavior; Mainstream Behavior; Religious Beliefs; Turkish Network; Mainstream Network; Norms with regard to Turkish Language and Culture; Norms with Regard to Mainstream Language and Culture; Language Register Spoken with Different Interlocutors; Language Register Spoken to Informant; Language Use; Language Preference; Language Choice across Topics; Private Value of Turkish; Societal Importance of Turkish Language; and Attitudes towards Turkish Language’, a group score is used for both the first and second generations. Based on the scale sores, the results for each country are presented as spider graphs in the following section.

3.11 Turkish Immigrants in the United States of America As seen in Fig. 3.1, there are large differences between the first- and secondgeneration Turkish immigrants with respect to language use, choice, preference and dominance. Second-generation Turkish immigrants prefer speaking English more than the first-generation but on the whole both generations prefer speaking in both English and Turkish. In terms of feeling Turkish, societal importance of Turkish and Turkish vitality, both generations report almost the same opinions. Regarding the connection with American culture and feeling American, second-generation appear to have much higher scores. Apparently, second-generation Turkish immigrants are much more oriented towards American culture. Concerning the religious beliefs scale both group hold similar values but the first-generation appear to be more religious compared to the second-generation. As there are clear differences in Turkish language use, choice and attitudes between the first and second generation, it is most likely that the third generation born into second-generation parents will have very limited skills

60

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

First Generation

Attitudes towards home languages Societal importance of Turkish language

Feeling Turkish 50

Second generation

Feeling American

40 30

Turkish identity

20 Language choice across topics

American identity

10 0

Language preference

Religious beliefs

Language use Language register spoken to informant

Turkish vitality

Language register spoken with different…

Perception of American attitudes

Fig. 3.2 Intergenerational differences in acculturation orientations of Turkish-Americans

in Turkish. The current language use and choice pattern in the domestic domain is indicating language shift to the mainstream language. Symbolic elements of culture are reported to be possessed by both generations but when it comes to actual language use, it is clear that the second-generation is shifting in the direction of English. The second-generation Turkish-Americans exhibit the characteristics of linguistic assimilation in many domains of language use. Given the melting-pot ideology of America and the goods and resources that come with English language proficiency, these outcomes are not surprising for Turkish-American immigrants (Fig. 3.2).

3.12 Turkish Immigrants in Australia The picture in the Australian context is very similar to the American context regarding the intergenerational differences but socio-cultural orientation of Turkish immigrants in the Australian context towards the mainstream society is much lower compared to

3.12 Turkish Immigrants in Australia

61

Fig. 3.3 Intergenerational differences in acculturation orientations of Turkish-Australians

the Turkish-American immigrants. Turkish-Australian immigrants have a very high ethnic identification score regarding feeling Turkish, Turkish identity and Turkish behavior. Besides the differences between the generations is smaller. However, in a very similar fashion to the American context, the differences between the first and second generation is quite large regarding Turkish language use, choice and dominance. Therefore, the use of English among the second generation TurkishAmericans is much higher than the second generation Turkish-Australians. The use of the mainstream language among the second-generation Turkish-Australians is very extensive. In a very intriguing manner, the societal importance of Turkish is reported to be very low among both generations in the Australian context (Fig. 3.3).

3.13 Turkish Immigrants in France The official French ideology supports language assimilation and all the immigrants are expected to forget their mother tongue and use French in all domains of language use. Turkish immigrants show strong signs of linguistic assimilation especially among the second-generation in the French context. This outcome is fully in line with our observations in the French context that even in the home context parents interact with their children in French. In a very intriguing manner, Turkish identity perception among the Turkish-French immigrants is almost the highest among all the

62

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

immigrant groups in this study. In a similar fashion, the Turkish-French are highly in-group oriented people that their social network is almost fully composed of other Turkish immigrants. As opposed to their high linguistic assimilation orientations, the Turkish-French immigrants have the highest religious belief scores among all the Turkish immigrant groups. This raises a highly interesting issue regarding the core values theory of Smolicz (1981), in which Smolicz claims that for all ethnic groups, there are a number of cultural values such as language, religion, traditions, family structure, political organization, food, music and so on. Some cultural values are crucial for a group’s continued viability and integrity, which can be identified as core values as they form the heartland of a group’s culture. A group’s loss of its core values results in its disintegration as a community and ultimately in complete assimilation. In line with Smolicz’s model Turkish language should appear as a core value in all immigration contexts. However, as it is clearly seen in the French context, religion turns out to be a core value for the Turkish immigrant group. In the same vein, Turkish identity and obeying Turkish norms and values receive high scores from the informants. Just like the other contexts, the societal value of Turkish is quite low (Fig. 3.4).

Fig. 3.4 Intergenerational differences in acculturation orientations of Turkish-French

3.14 Turkish Immigrants in Germany

63

3.14 Turkish Immigrants in Germany In the five-immigration context, the differences between first- and second-generation immigrants are the least in the German context. Regarding all the socio-cultural, identity, religious and language scales, the Turks in Germany report highly coherent and comparable opinions. In terms of feeling Turkish, behavior and Turkish identification, the first-generation has higher scores but the difference is negligible. It is intriguing that both generations mix in with other Turkish speakers in Germany. The group is highly in-group oriented. Regarding German identity and feeling German, the lowest scores are obtained in the German context. Only regarding the societal importance of Turkish the scores are low but based on the social, economic and educational relevance of German in the society, this outcome is very normal. Regarding language use and choice among different generations in the German context, it is clear that both generations use and prefer Turkish in a number of domains. In the home context, the use and choice of Turkish is the highest. In terms of religious belief scale, both groups are reported to be equally religious. There are almost no differences between the two generations, which is again very different from the pattern in other contexts where the first generation appears to be more religiously oriented than the second-generation informants. The minimal difference between the generations in the German context is an indication of the large social and cultural distance perceived by the Turkish immigrants. German acculturation orientations and state policies regarding immigrant integration might play a role in this outcome. Normally, from the second-generation we would expect a much higher socio-cultural orientation towards the mainstream society but second-generation Turks do not exhibit such characteristics. The reasons of which need to be further explored (Fig. 3.5).

3.15 Turkish Immigrants in the Netherlands The picture in the Dutch context is more similar to the Australian context. Even though the European policies support multilingualism and multiculturalism, individual state policies do not always encourage bilingualism among Turkish immigrant children. Both in Germany and the Netherlands, acquisition of Turkish is seen to be an obstacle before integration and policy makers and educational specialists think learning Turkish would postpone or block learning of the mainstream language. Such ideas are quite widespread in the European context and it is linguistically of course not valid. Before the year 2004, the Netherlands supported home language instruction and provided rich resources in primary and secondary schools. However, in 2004 they stopped funding mother tongue classes and children in the age group of 6–12 cannot receive any mother tongue education in schools, which limits their competence in their home language. Not being able to send their children to home language classes apparently raised some awareness among the members of the Turkish community in the Netherlands because the first-generation has the highest scores regarding Turkish

64

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

Fig. 3.5 Intergenerational differences in acculturation orientations of Turkish-German

language use, choice, and dominance among the five countries. Especially regarding the norms and values of Turkish culture Turkish-Dutch informants seem to have the highest scores. Just like the German context, the differences between the generations appear to be rather low, which requires further reflection also in the Dutch context. Both the first- and second-generation informants differentiate between Turkish and Dutch identities. The identification with the Dutch cultural norms and values seem to be very low. This orientation is very different from the Turkish immigrants in Australia and America. Just as in the German context, Turkish-Dutch informants report highly similar views regarding their religious values (Fig. 3.6).

3.16 Discussion and Conclusions Based on this large-scale quantitative study, it was possible to get a general view on acculturation orientations of Turkish informants in Australia, the United States of America, France, Germany and the Netherlands. It can easily be concluded that there are clear-cut generational differences between the first and second-generation informants regarding their acculturation patterns in the Australian and American contexts; however, the differences are negligible in the European context. Both the first and second-generation Turkish informants in Australia and the USA have higher acculturation orientations towards the receiving society; however, in the European

3.16 Discussion and Conclusions

65

Fig. 3.6 Intergenerational differences in acculturation orientations of Turkish-Dutch

context, both generations show higher in-group orientations. The adoption of mainstream values is much higher among the second-generation informants in Australia and America. As expected, language turned out to be a prominent predictor in explaining the differences in acculturation orientations of Turkish informants. Second-generation informants were born and raised in the immigration context, they attended mainstream schools and acquired the mainstream language because of which mainstream language use among the second generation is much higher compared to the firstgeneration. However, the difference between the first and second language use is much larger in the Australian and American contexts compared to the European countries. Very different from the European context, also the first generation informants in Australia and America reported high second language use, choice and preference. This might be attributed to high educational and professional qualifications of the Turkish immigrant group in these English-speaking countries. Besides, the reasons for immigrating to Australia and USA is rather different from immigrating to European countries. In most cases, Turkish immigrants move to Australia and the USA with permanent settlement purposes. As indicated earlier, educational qualifications of Turkish speakers in Australia and the States is much higher than their European counterparts’ educational level. Compared to the outcomes obtained in Australia, France, Germany and the Netherlands, Turkish immigrants in the USA exhibit fundamentally different acculturation orientations. There are some similarities between the second-generation informants

66

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

in Australia and the United States, however, the differences with France, Germany and the Netherlands is quite large. The least intergenerational difference was observed in Germany but in the American context, the differences are very significant. These large differences between the countries of immigration can be explained on the basis of the receiving societies’ acculturation orientations and policies towards immigrant groups. On the basis of these outcomes it can be concluded that language maintenance patterns as observed among first- and second-generation immigrants in the European context is much higher compared to Australia and the USA. However, the secondgeneration in the American context display the highest language shift towards the mainstream language. Even in the domestic context, second-generation Turkish seem to be using English, which points out the possibility of full linguistic assimilation among the third generation Turks in the United States of America. In the European context, Turkish immigrants are still in-group oriented and Turkish language use is quite wide-spread with the exception of France. Apparently, assimilation ideology of France has a certain effect on language use patterns of Turkish immigrants. Similar to the American context, the second-generation Turkish immigrants in France face linguistic assimilation and the risk of losing Turkish language for the third generation is highly possible. The use of French even in the home context among Turkish immigrants is a clear sign of strong language shift. Based on the analysis of Turkish acculturation orientations in the five national contexts, we can conclude that there is a close connection between the degree of acculturation and the integration ideology of the receiving societies. Turkish immigrants in Australia ant the USA appear to integrate better into the mainstream society compared to their counterparts in the European context. The first obvious reason might be higher educational profiles of the Turkish immigrants in the USA and Australia. Highly skilled and well-educated immigrants went to Australia and to the USA. Brain drain is still an ongoing debate in Turkey. There can be a number of reasons that we cannot account for on the basis of our data; however, the clear difference between Australian and European discourse regarding immigrants and immigration might play a major role in the acculturation process. The public discourse about immigrants and asylum seekers is remarkably negative in Europe (Crowley & Hickman, 2008). As a result, immigrants’ position as outsiders is strengthened and managing migration and promoting social cohesion appear to be a great challenge for policy makers in most European nation states. In addition, because most European countries have not considered themselves as countries of immigration, coming to terms with social and cultural changes as a result of diversity becomes much harder compared to Australia and to the USA, which are characterized and accepted as immigration countries. Samers (1998) even claimed that in some European countries ideological construction of nationhood continues to be significant in the social construction of the social exclusion of immigrants. Our data clearly show differences in the degree of Turkish immigrants’ sense of belonging in the four immigration contexts. These country differences may also be related to the psychological climate vis-à-vis multiculturalism experienced by immigrants in their everyday lives. Populations in countries with a long history of immigration such as Australia and the

3.16 Discussion and Conclusions

67

USA may well be more welcoming for immigrants. It is no surprise that the sense of belonging was largest in the Turkish-Australian group. Our study clearly shows that country and policy characteristics matter for immigrants and for the way they deal with the new country and its population. A faster adjustment to the mainstream society seems to be reached by using a carrot (like accepting immigrants as belonging to the country) than by a stick (like enforcing assimilation).

Survey of Language, Culture and Identity Part−I Personal Information (1)

Gender: • Female • Male

(2) (3)

Age: ……….. (in years) Country of Birth • Turkey • Australia • Other, namely: ……………………………………

(4) (5)

How long have you been living in Australia? ……… years. In which country is your father born? • Turkey • Australia • Other, namely: ……………………………………

(6)

In which country is your mother born? • Turkey • Australia • Other, namely: ……………………………………

(7) (8) (9) (10)

In which city do you live? …………………………………… What is the last school diploma you got? …………………………………… What is your job? …………………………………… Are you married? • Yes • No

(11)

If you are married, in which country is your partner born? • Turkey • Australia • Other, namely: ……………………………………

68

(12)

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

How often do you visit Turkey? • • • •

More than once per year Once per year Once every two years Once every three or more years

Part 2: Multiculturalism Index For the given statements below, circle the most relevant number for you. I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I definetly don’t agree agree agree (1) Australian people should recognize that the Australian society consists of groups with different cultural backgrounds

1

2

3

4

5

(2) Ethnic minorities should be helped to preserve their cultural heritage in Australia

1

2

3

4

5

(3) It is best for Australia if all people forget their cultural backgrounds as soon as possible

1

2

3

4

5

(4) A society that has a variety of cultural 1 groups is more able to tackle new problems as they occur

2

3

4

5

(5) The unity of this country is weakened by people from different cultural backgrounds sticking to their old ways

1

2

3

4

5

(6) If people from different cultural origins want to keep their own culture, they should keep it to themselves

1

2

3

4

5

(7) A society that has a variety of cultural 1 groups has more problems with national unity than societies with one or two basic cultural groups

2

3

4

5

(8) Australian people should do more to learn about the customs and heritage of different cultural groups in this country

1

2

3

4

5

(9) Immigrant parents must encourage their children to retain the culture and traditions of their homeland

1

2

3

4

5

(10) People who come to live in Australia 1 should change their behavior to be more like the Australians

2

3

4

5

Survey of Language, Culture and Identity

69

Part III: Australian and Turkish Culture (1)

Different people live in Australia. To which group do you think you belong to? • • • •

The Turkish group The Australian group Both Australian and Turkish Other, namely: ………………………………………………………… I definitely don’t agree

I don’t agree

Neutral

I agree

I definetly agree

(2) I feel Turkish

1

2

3

4

5

(3) I feel Australian

1

2

3

4

5

(4)

I feel Turkish because,

I speak Turkish

I definitely don’t agree

I don’t agree

Neutral

I agree

I definetly agree

1

2

3

4

5

I am a Muslim

1

2

3

4

5

I know much about my religion

1

2

3

4

5

I live in accordance with Turkish norms and values

1

2

3

4

5

I was born from Turkish parents

1

2

3

4

5

I was raised as a Turkish person

1

2

3

4

5

I look Turkish

1

2

3

4

5

I feel much more comfortable next to Turkish people

1

2

3

4

5

Other people see me as a Turk

1

2

3

4

5

Australian culture does not appeal to me

1

2

3

4

5

(5)

I feel Australian because, I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I definetly don’t agree agree agree

I speak English

1

2

3

4

5

I know Australian mentality very well

1

2

3

4

5

I live in accordance with Australian norms and traditions

1

2

3

4

5 (continued)

70

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

(continued) I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I definetly don’t agree agree agree I was raised as a Australian person

1

2

3

4

5

I look Australian

1

2

3

4

5

I feel much more comfortable next to Australian people

1

2

3

4

5

Other people see me as a Australian

1

2

3

4

5

The Turks in Australia and their culture does 1 not appeal to me

2

3

4

5

(6)

Circle the relevant number for the following statements. I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I definetly don’t agree agree agree

I am happy that I am Turkish

1

2

3

4

5

I feel some bond between myself and other Turks

1

2

3

4

5

Being Turkish does not say what kind of a person I am

1

2

3

4

5

I regret that I am a Turk

1

2

3

4

5

When people talk about Turks, I feel as if they talk about me

1

2

3

4

5

Being a Turk is an important dimension of my cultural identity

1

2

3

4

5

I am proud that I am a Turk

1

2

3

4

5

When I talk about Turks, I mostly say “we Turks”

1

2

3

4

5

In many respects, I am like the other Turks

1

2

3

4

5

I am happy that I am Australian

1

2

3

4

5

I feel some bond between myself and other Australian

1

2

3

4

5

Being like a Australian person does not define what kind of a person I am

1

2

3

4

5

When people talk about the Australians, I feel as if they talk about me

1

2

3

4

5

Being like an Australian person is an 1 important dimension of my cultural identity

2

3

4

5

I regret that I am like a Australian person

1

2

3

4

5

When I talk about the Australians, I mostly say “we Australians.”

1

2

3

4

5 (continued)

Survey of Language, Culture and Identity

71

(continued) I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I definetly don’t agree agree agree In many respects, I am like the other Australians

(7) All in all, do you feel more Turkish or more Australian?

Only Turkish

1

More Turkish

2

Equally both

3

4

More Australian

5

Only Australian

(8) In what type of situations or circumstances do you feel more like Turkish?

(9) In what type of situations or circumstances do you feel more like Australian?

(10)

Circle the relevant number for the following statements. I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I definetly don’t agree agree agree

I know Turkish culture very well

1

2

3

4

5

I know Australian culture very well

1

2

3

4

5

I know most Turkish traditions and I live by them

1

2

3

4

5

I know most Australian traditions and I live by them

1

2

3

4

5

I know Turkish social customs, rules and norms of cultural behavior

1

2

3

4

5

I know Australian social customs, rules and norms of cultural behavior

1

2

3

4

5

Turkish values, such as Turkish flag and history) mean a lot to me

1

2

3

4

5

Australian values, such as Australian flag 1 and history, mean a lot to me

2

3

4

5

Turkish culture is an important component of me

1

2

3

4

5

Australian culture is an important component of me

1

2

3

4

5

Turkish culture has a positive effect on my life

1

2

3

4

5 (continued)

72

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

(continued) I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I definetly don’t agree agree agree Australian culture has a positive effect on 1 my life

2

3

4

5

I live in accordance with Turkish cultural norms and values

1

2

3

4

5

I live in accordance with Australian cultural norms and values

1

2

3

4

5

I listen to Turkish music

1

2

3

4

5

I listen to Australian music

1

2

3

4

5

I listen to Turkish news

1

2

3

4

5

I listen to Australian news

1

2

3

4

5

I prefer Turkish food

1

2

3

4

5

I prefer Australian food

1

2

3

4

5

In my spare time, I participate in Turkish cultural activities

1

2

3

4

5

In my spare time, I participate in Australian cultural activities

1

2

3

4

5

Part 4: Religious Belief Because the questions in this section are related to your personal life and beliefs, you might find some questions to be highly sensitive or purely personal. We respect the sensitivity of the matter and fully respect your personal views. Please remember that this is a scientific research and in order to arrive at healthy conclusions we need to find out the real opinions. As researchers, we simply want to find out about the intergenerational differences. If we had asked any questions that might hurt your feelings or that might appear to be against your personal beliefs, we would apologise for it in advance. (11)

Circle the relevant number for the following statements. I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I definetly don’t agree agree agree

I am a Muslim

1

2

3

4

5

I know a lot about Islam

1

2

3

4

5

I know Islamic rules very well

1

2

3

4

5

I know how to practice my religion

1

2

3

4

5

I feel a strong bond between myself and other Muslims

1

2

3

4

5

Islam means a lot to me

1

2

3

4

5 (continued)

Survey of Language, Culture and Identity

73

(continued) I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I definetly don’t agree agree agree When people talk about Muslims, I feel as if 1 they talk about me

2

3

4

5

I am in favour of strict application of Islamic 1 rules

2

3

4

5

When I take decisions in my daily life, I consider Islamic rules

1

2

3

4

5

In Australia, Islam must have a role in social 1 life and political matters

2

3

4

5

Islamic belief is related to people’s personal 1 lives

2

3

4

5

Islam is a source of inspiration in my daily life

1

2

3

4

5

I lead a normal life without giving priority to 1 Islamic rules

2

3

4

5

I am a practicing Muslim

2

3

4

5

1

I fast during Ramadan

1

2

3

4

5

I celebrate religious festivities

1

2

3

4

5

I prefer halal meat

1

2

3

4

5

I believe that religious belief is a personal matter

1

2

3

4

5

Part 5: Social Network (12)

Circle the relevant number for the following statements. I definitely I don’t don’t agree agree

Neutral I agree

I definetly agree

I have many Turkish friends

1

2

3

4

5

I have many Australian friends

1

2

3

4

5

In my spare time, I go to places, such as 1 clubs, tea-houses, where I can meet Turkish people

2

3

4

5

In my spare time, I go to places, such as 1 clubs, tea-houses, where I can meet Australian people

2

3

4

5

I am a member of an Australian club/organisation

1

2

3

4

5

I am a member of a Turkish club/organisation

1

2

3

4

5

There are many Turks in the suburb I live

1

2

3

4

5 (continued)

74

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

(continued) I definitely I don’t don’t agree agree

Neutral I agree

I definetly agree

I feel much more comfortable among Turks

1

2

3

4

5

I feel much more comfortable among the Australians

1

2

3

4

5

I know the Australians very well

1

2

3

4

5

I know the Turks very well

1

2

3

4

5

I like the way Turks relate to each other 1

2

3

4

5

I like the way Australian relate to each other

1

2

3

4

5

I have close relations with my family

1

2

3

4

5

I have close relations with my Turkish friends

1

2

3

4

5

I have close relations with my Australian friends

1

2

3

4

5

I have many Turkish friends whom I can call real friends

1

2

3

4

5

I have many Australian friends whom I can call real friends

1

2

3

4

5

When I have personal problems, I share 1 it with my Turkish friends

2

3

4

5

When I have personal problems, I share 1 it with my Australian friends

2

3

4

5

When I need help in my daily life, I ask 1 help from Turkish friends

2

3

4

5

When I need help in my daily life, I ask 1 help from Australian friends

2

3

4

5

All in all, are you more in contact with the Turkish or with the Australian people?

More Equally More Only Turkish both Australian Australian

(13)

Only Turkish

With whom do you pass your time the most? In order of frequency, order the following persons by writing numbers in front of them: for people whom you spend the most time write (1) second most (2), then (3), (4) and for the least time spent, write (5).

…………. With my family …………. With my Turkish friends …………. With my Australian friends …………. With my Turkish associates …………. With Australian associates

Survey of Language, Culture and Identity

(14)

75

Circle the relevant number for the following statements. I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I definetly don’t agree agree agree

If Turkish people in Australia stop speaking 1 Turkish, they would lose their Turkish identity

2

3

4

5

If Turkish people in Australia stop practicing Islam, they would lose their Turkish identity

1

2

3

4

5

If Turkish people in Australia lose their Turkish norms and values, they would lose their Turkish identity

1

2

3

4

5

The Turks in Australia can act together as a group

1

2

3

4

5

The Turks in Australia has strong group solidarity

1

2

3

4

5

In order to take care of their interests, the 1 Turks in Australia have sufficient number of organisations and foundations

2

3

4

5

Turkish organisations and foundations contribute positively to Turkish community

1

2

3

4

5

The Turks in Australia always support each other

1

2

3

4

5

The Turks in Australia are well-represented in the politics

1

2

3

4

5

Australian people usually think negatively about the Turks

1

2

3

4

5

Australian people value Turkish language and culture

1

2

3

4

5

Australian people are negative towards Turkish language and culture

1

2

3

4

5

Australian discriminate against the Turks

1

2

3

4

5

There are sufficient facilitities to teach Turksih language in Australia

1

2

3

4

5

In the suburb that I live, there are sufficient number of Turkish organisations, tea-houses, shops, etc.

1

2

3

4

5

We have sufficient Turkish media in Australia (newspaper, tv, etc.)

1

2

3

4

5

If a Turk has a problem, s/he would know that s/he can get help from the Turkish community

1

2

3

4

5

(continued)

76

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

(continued) I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I definetly don’t agree agree agree In 20–30 years, Turks in Australia will be much better organised and there will be more solidarity between them

1

2

3

4

5

In 20–30 years, Turks will not exist as a community, group identity will be lost

1

2

3

4

5

Part 6: Immigrants in Australia (15)

Circle the relevant number for the following statements I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I don’t agree agree definetly agree

The Immigrants living in Australia have to speak in Australian

1

2

3

4

5

The Immigrants living in Australia have to 1 value Australian norms and values more than anything

2

3

4

5

The Immigrants living in Australia can speak 1 in their own languages

2

3

4

5

The Immigrants living in Australia can live in accordance with their cultural norms and values

1

2

3

4

5

The Immigrants living in Australia can value 1 their own norms and values

2

3

4

5

The Immigrants living in Australia have to 1 live in accordance with Australian norms and values

2

3

4

5

In public places, at work, at school I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I definetly don’t agree agree agree Immigrants always have to speak in Australian

1

2

3

4

5

The Immigrants can speak in their own languages

1

2

3

4

5

Immigrants must obey the Australian norms and values

1

2

3

4

5 (continued)

Survey of Language, Culture and Identity

77

(continued) I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I definetly don’t agree agree agree Immigrants can act in line with their own norms and values

1

2

3

4

5

Immigrants must act in line with Australian 1 norms and values

2

3

4

5

At home I definitely I don’t Neutral I agree I definetly don’t agree agree agree The Immigrants can speak in their own languages

1

2

3

4

5

Immigrants must live in accordance with the 1 Australian norms and values

2

3

4

5

Immigrants can live in line with their own norms and values

1

2

3

4

5

The Immigrants must speak in English

1

2

3

4

5

Part 7: Turkish−English Language Use (16)

Circle the relevant number for the following statements.

In which language do you interact mostly with the Always Mostly Equal Mostly Always following persons? English English Turkish Turkish With your father?

1

2

3

4

5

With your mother?

1

2

3

4

5

With your siblings?

1

2

3

4

5

With your Turkish friends?

1

2

3

4

5

With your Turkish friends in your suburb?

1

2

3

4

5

With people in Turkish businesses?

1

2

3

4

5

With people in tea-houses?

1

2

3

4

5

With people in the mosque?

1

2

3

4

5

With Turkish people on the telephone?

1

2

3

4

5

78

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

When the following people speak to you, in which Always Mostly Equal Mostly Always language do they speak? English English Turkish Turkish Your father?

1

2

3

4

5

Your mother?

1

2

Your siblings?

1

2

3

4

5

3

4

Your friends?

1

2

5

3

4

5

Your relatives?

1

2

3

4

5

Your Turkish neighbours?

1

2

3

4

5

In which language do you mostly..?

Always English

Mostly English

Equal

Mostly Turkish

think? dream? count, calculate?

Always Turkish

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

read books?

1

2

3

4

5

read newspapers

1

2

3

4

5

watch tv?

1

2

3

4

5

listen to radio?

1

2

3

4

5

write?

1

2

3

4

5

Which language do you mostly prefer speaking Always Mostly Equal Mostly Always when you are? English English Turkish Turkish tired?

1

2

3

4

5

stressed?

1

2

3

4

5

angry?

1

2

3

4

5

in a hurry?

1

2

3

4

5

arguing?

1

2

3

4

5

happy?

1

2

3

4

5

confused?

1

2

3

4

5

Which language do you mostly prefer when you Always Mostly Equal Mostly Always speak about the following topics? English English Turkish Turkish On daily matters?

1

2

3

4

5

On academic matters?

1

2

3

4

5

On socio-political matters?

1

2

3

4

5

On popular culture?

1

2

3

4

5

(continued)

Survey of Language, Culture and Identity

79

(continued) Which language do you mostly prefer when you Always Mostly Equal Mostly Always speak about the following topics? English English Turkish Turkish On religious matters?

1

2

3

4

5

On culture-education?

1

2

3

4

5

How important is Turkish to do the following in Australia?

Not important

A little

Average

Important

Very important

To Make Friends

1

2

3

4

5

To Make Money

1

2

3

4

5

To Study

1

2

3

4

5

To Find a Job

1

2

3

4

5

To Get a Better Education

1

2

3

4

5

To Live in Australia

1

2

3

4

5

To Have a Say in the Society

1

2

3

4

5

To Rear Children

1

2

3

4

5

To Be Accepted in the Turkish 1 Community

2

3

4

5

To Speak to Turkish Friends

1

2

3

4

5

To be Accepted by Australian people

1

2

3

4

5

To Speak to Work Colleagues

1

2

3

4

5

To Travel

1

2

3

4

5

To Do Trade

1

2

3

4

5

Only English

More English

Both the same

What do you think of English and Turkish?

More Turkish

Only Turkish

It sounds nice

1

2

3

4

5

It sounds friendly

1

2

3

4

5

It sounds distinguished

1

2

3

4

5

It sounds polite

1

2

3

4

5

It sounds pleasant

1

2

3

4

5

It sounds modern

1

2

3

4

5

80

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

References Ait Ouarasse, O., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2004). Structure and function of the perceived acculturation context of young Moroccans in the Netherlands. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000367 Alba, R. (2005). Bright vs. blurred boundaries: Second-generation assimilation and exclusion in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28, 1, 20–49. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0141987042000280003 Archibald, J. (2002). Immigrant integration: The ongoing process of reform in France and Québec. In S. J. Baker (Ed.), Language policy: Lessons from global models (pp. 30–58). Monterey Institute. Arends-Tóth, J. (2003). Psychological acculturation of Turkish migrants in the Netherlands: Issues in theory and assessment. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University. Arends-Tóth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). Issues in the conceptualization and assessment of acculturation. In M. H. Bornstein & L. R. Cote (Eds.), Acculturation and parent–child relationships: Measurement and development (pp. 33–62). Lawrence Erlbaum. Arends-Tóth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and Turkish-Dutch. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 249–266. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/ejsp.143 Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80– 114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80 Ataca, B., & Berry, J. W. (2002). Psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation of Turkish immigrant couples in Canada. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 13–26. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00207590143000135 Barker, V., Giles, H., Noels, K., Duck, J., Hecht, M., & Clément, R. (2001). The English-only movement: A communication analysis of changing perceptions of language vitality. Journal of Communication, 51, 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02870.x Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference. Allen & Unwin. Bauböck, R., Heller, A., & Zolberg, A. R. (Eds.). (1996). The challenge of diversity: Integration and Pluralism in Societies of Immigration. Avebury. Berry, J. W. (1980). Social and cultural change. In H. C. Triandis & R. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 211–279). Allyn & Bacon. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: an International Review, 46, 5–34. Bezcioglu-Göktolga, I., & Yagmur, K. (2018). The impact of Dutch teachers on family language policy of Turkish immigrant parents. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 31(3), 220–234. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1504392 Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1982). Les rites d’institution [the institutional rites]. Actes De La Recherche En Sciences Socials, 43, 58–63. Bourhis, R. Y. (2001). Acculturation, language maintenance, and language shift. In J. KlatterFolmer & P. Van Avermaat (Eds.). Theories on maintenance and loss of minority languages: Towards a more integrated explanatory framework (pp. 5–37). Waxmann. Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075997400629 Brands, K., Crone, L., Leurdijk, A., & Top, B. (1998). Media en migranten [Media and migrants]. University of Amsterdam. Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Harvard Univ. Press. Castles, S. (2004). Migration, citizenship, and education. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and Citizenship education: Global Perspectives. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

References

81

Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1992). Towards a situated approach to ethnolinguistic identity: The effects of status on individuals and groups. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 11, 203–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X92114002 Clément, R., Noels, K. A., & Deneault, B. (2001). Interethnic contact, identity, and psychological adjustment: The mediating and moderating roles of communication. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 559–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00229 Clyne, M. (1991). Community languages: The American experience. Cambridge University Press. Clyne, M. (1992). Linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of language contact, maintenance and loss. Towards a multifacet theory. In W. Fase, K. Jaspaert, & S. Kroon (Eds.), Maintenance and loss of minority languages (pp. 17–36). John Benjamins. Crowley, H., & Hickman, M. J. (2008). Migration, postindustrialism and the globalised nation state: social capital and social cohesion re-examined. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(4), 1–23. Dandy, J., & Pe-Pua, R. (2010). Attitudes to multiculturalism, immigration and cultural diversity: Comparison of dominant and non-dominant groups in three Australian states. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.10.003 Dimitrova, R., Chasiotis, A., & van de Vijver, F. (2016). Adjustment outcomes of immigrant children and youth in Europe: a meta-analysis. European Psychologist, 21, 150–162. https://doi.org/10. 1027/1016-9040/a000246 De Angelis, G. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about the role of prior language knowledge in learning and how these influence teaching practices. International Journal of Multilingualism, 8(3), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2011.560669 Edwards, J. (1992). Sociopolitical aspects of language maintenance and loss. In W. Fase, K. Jaspaert & S. Kroon (Eds.), Maintenance and loss of minority languages (pp. 37–54). John Benjamins. Extra, G., & Yagmur, K. (Eds.). (2004). Urban multilingualism in Europe. Immigrant minority languages at home and school. Multilingual Matters. Extra, G., Yagmur, K., & Van der Avoird, T. (2004). Methodological considerations. In G. Extra & K. Yagmur (Eds.), Urban multilingualism in Europe: Immigrant minority languages at home and school (pp. 109–132). Multilingual Matters. Extra, G., Aarts, R., Avoird, T. van der, Broeder, P., & Yagmur, K. (2002). De andere talen van Nederland (The other languages of the Netherlands). Coutinho. Extra, G., & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.). (1993). Immigrant languages in Europe. Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. (2003). Endangered minority languages: Prospects for sociolinguistic research. MOST Journal on Multicultural Societies, 4(2), 1–9. Fuligni, A. J., Kiang, L., Witkow, M. R., & Baldelomar, O. (2008). Stability and change in ethnic labeling among adolescents from immigrant families across the high school years. Child Development, 79, 944–956. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01169.x Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations, In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations (pp. 307–344). Academic Press. Gonzo, S., & Saltarelli, M. (1983). Pidginization and linguistic change in emigrant languages. In R. W. Andersen (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 181–197). Newbury House. Helot, C., & Young, A. (2002). Bilingualism and language education in French primary schools: Why and how should migrant languages be valued? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(2), 96–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050208667749 Hyltenstam, K., & Stroud, C. (1996). Language maintenance. In Goebl et al. (Eds.), Contact linguistics (pp. 567–578). Walter de Gruyter. Janmaat, J. G. (2006). Popular conceptions of nationhood in old and new European member states: Partial support for the ethnic-civic framework. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29, 50–78. https://doi. org/10.1080/01419870500352363

82

3 Acculturation Orientations of Turkish Immigrants in the USA …

Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2008). Long-term immigrant adaptation: Eight-year follow-up study among immigrants from Russia and Estonia living in Finland. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701804271 Kang, S. (2006). Measurement of acculturation, scale formats, and language competence: Their implications for adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 669–693. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0022022106292077 Kipp, S., Clyne, M., & Pauwels, A. (1995). Immigration and Australia’s language resources. AGPS. Koenig, M. (1999). Social conditions for the implementation of linguistic human rights through multicultural policies: The case of the Kyrgyz Republic. Current Issues in Language & Society, 6(1), 57–84. Kraler, A., Reichel, D., & Entzinger, H. (2015). Migration statistics in Europe: a core component of governance and population research. In P. Scholten, H. Entzinger, R. Penninx, & S. Verbeek (Eds.), Integrating immigrants in Europe: Research-policy dialogues (pp. 39–58). Springer. Lamont, M., & Molnar, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195. Macquarie dictionary: Australia’s national dictionary online. (2003). Macquarie Library, [North Ryde, N.S.W.], Sydney, Australia. Masgoret, A., & Ward, C. (2006). Culture learning approach to acculturation. Cambridge University Press. Phalet, K., & Baysu, G. (2020). Fitting in: How the intergroup context shapes minority acculturation and achievement. European Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10463283.2020.1711627 Phalet, K., & Kosic, A. (2006). Acculturation in European societies. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 331–348). Cambridge University Press. Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.499 Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and wellbeing: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 493–510. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/0022-4537.00225 Piller, I. (2001). Naturalization language testing and its basis in ideologies of national identity and citizenship. International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(3), 259–277. Piller, I., & Takahashi, K. (2011). Linguistic diversity and social inclusion. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(4), 371–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011. 573062 Rollan, R., & Sourou, B. (2006). Les migrants Turcs de France, Entre repli et ouverture [the Turkish migrants in France, between closre and opening]. Maison des Sciences de l’Homme d’Aquitaine. Rudmin, F., Wang, B., & de Castro, J. (2017). Acculturation research critiques and alternative research designs. In S. J. Schwartz & J. B. Unger (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of acculturation and health (pp. 75–95). Oxford University Press. Samers, M. (1998). Immigration, ‘Ethnic Minorities’, and ‘Social Exclusion’ in the European Union: a Critical Perspective. Geoforum, 29(2), 123–144. Schalk-Soekar, S. R. G., et al. (2004). Attitudes toward multiculturalism of immigrants and majority members in the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 533–550. Schrover, M., & Schinkel, W. (2013). Introduction: The language of inclusion and exclusion in the context of immigration and integration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(7), 1123–1141. https://doi. org/10.1080/01419870.2013.783711 Shadid, W. (2006). Public debates over Islam and the awareness of Muslim identity in the Netherlands. European Education, 38(2), 10–22. Smolicz, J. J. (1981). Core values and cultural identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4, 75–90. Spolsky, B. (2016). The languages of diaspora and return. Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1(2–3), 1–119.

References

83

Tribalat, M. (1995). Faire France. Une enquête sur les immigrés et leurs enfants [Making France. A study on immigrants and their children]. La Découverte ("Essais"). Vasta, E. (2006). From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: changing identities and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands. Working Paper No. 26, University of Oxford: Centre on Migration, Policy and Society. Vedder, P. H., & Horenczyk, G. (2006). Acculturation and the school. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 419–438). Cambridge University Press. Verkuyten, M. (2007). Religious group identification and inter-religious relations: A study among Turkish-Dutch Muslims. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 341–357. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1368430207078695 Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2002). Multiculturalism among minority and majority adolescents in the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 91–108. Virta, E., Sam, D. L., & Westin, C. (2004). Adolescents with Turkish background in Norway and Sweden: A comparative study of their psychological adaptation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2004.00374.x Van de Vijver, F., Berry, J., & Celenk, O. (2016). Assessment of acculturation. In D. Sam, & J. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pp. 93–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9781316219218.007 Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Ward, C., Masgoret, A-M. (2006). Patterns of relations between immigrants and host societies. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 637–651. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.09.001 Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K. S., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 995–1013. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6%3c995:: AID-EJSP908%3e3.0.CO;2-8 Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Psychological and socio-cultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions: A comparison of secondary students overseas and at home. International Journal of Psychology, 28, 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599308247181 Waters, C. M., & Jiménez, R. T. (2005). Assessing immigrant assimilation: New empirical and theoretical challenges. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1146/ann urev.soc.29.010202.100026 Weber, M. (1978). Ethnic groups. In G. Roth & C. Wittic (Eds.), Max Weber, economy and society (Vol. 1). University of California Press. Weiner, M. F. (2014). Whitening a diverse Dutch classroom: White cultural discourses in an Amsterdam primary school. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870. 2014.894200 Wimmer, A. (2009). Herder’s heritage and the boundary-making approach: Studying ethnicity in immigrant societies. Sociological Theory, 27(3), 244–270. Yagmur, K., & van de Vijver, F. (2012). Acculturation and language orientations of Turkish immigrants in Australia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(7), 1110–1130. Yagmur, K., & Extra, G. (2011). Urban multilingualism in Europe: Educational responses to increasing diversity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1185–1194. Yagmur, K., & Akinci, M.-A. (2003). Language use, choice, maintenance and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish speakers in France: Intergenerational differences. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 164, 107–128. Yagmur, K. (1997). First language attrition among Turkish speakers in Sydney. Tilburg University Press. Yagmur, K. (2016). Intergenerational language use and acculturation of Turkish speakers in four immigration contexts (Vol. 27, pp. 340). Language, multilingualism and social change. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Peter Lang.

Chapter 4

Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy

4.1 Introduction One of the most significant contributions of this book to the field is bringing together various interdisciplinary perspectives on the same topic to gain a deeper insight into the role of families in the acculturation process, language maintenance and shift. Using evidence from sociology, sociolinguistics, educational linguistics and crosscultural psychology, we examine the outcomes of language and cultural contact in minority-majority settings. In this Chapter, the attention will be on family language policy as part of the language maintenance and shift efforts of Turkish heritage speaker families primarily in Australia and the Netherlands. These countries have fundamentally different policies regarding immigration and immigrants’ cultural and linguistic acculturation. Documenting the family language policies of parents from Turkish heritage in these two respective countries will show the importance of host society acculturation orientations on the acculturation outcomes of the immigrant communities. Moreover, examining the responses of Turkish immigrants in the two national contexts will highlight the role of receiving society policies in the incorporation of immigrant groups in the host society. The traditional approaches to language maintenance and shift concentrated on the language use in immigrant communities and attitudes towards the heritage language and the mainstream society language in immigration contexts. Using conceptual frameworks of language maintenance and shift (e.g., Clyne, 2003; Fishman, 1991), home language use, choice and preference of immigrants are described mostly in an intergenerational perspective. Both psychological and sociolinguistic perspectives draw on ethnographic knowledge of the groups studied. Studying one community or multiple communities in the same national context is the most common methodological approach so far. Recently, however, focusing on one ethnic group in multiple national contexts seems to bring forward deeper insights into language contact outcomes and language integration policies of the receiving societies and maintenance or shift orientations of immigrant groups (Yagmur and van de Vijver, 2012). By focusing the attention on Turkish-Australian parents and Turkish-Dutch © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 K. Yagmur and F. J. R. van de Vijver, Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Acculturation in Turkish Immigrants, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94796-5_4

85

86

4 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy

parental strategies for heritage language use, choice, practice and management, we present a deeper insight into the dynamics of family language policy in the two diverse immigration contexts. As documented in great detail in earlier research, there are multiple factors, such as demographic, economic, status, linguistic, and historical, which are influential in the language maintenance and/or shift of ethnolinguistic groups. Individual choices alone cannot guarantee heritage language maintenance. Family being the core actor in the transmission of heritage language to younger generations, the role of family in language maintenance and shift needs to be documented. In line with Spolsky’s model of family language policy (2012), researchers investigated parental language practices, ideology and management. The focus usually falls on the linguistic interactions of family members in immigrant families with an immigration heritage. In family language policy (FLP) studies, focusing on language beliefs, practices and management strategies are certainly important. However, beliefs alone cannot explain the complicated nature of FLP dynamics. There are several crucial dimensions to be taken into consideration. Awareness of linguistic and cultural differences, socialization practices and being able to be involved in the schooling process of the children are some of the issues facing immigrant parents. Child rearing practices and socialization beliefs need to be discussed in more detail. Besides, given the huge diversity in family types and linguistic practices in different generations, it is impossible to talk about one type of ‘beliefs and attitudes’ towards the heritage language. Primordialist approaches to ethnolinguistic groups still assume that there is only ‘one type’ of traditional and ‘homogenous’ Turkish family, however, Turkish immigrant families and their acculturation orientations show huge diversity. As opposed to highly collectivistic and extended family types of the traditional first-generation immigrants, we have more and more individualistic and smaller families in second and third-generation immigrants with a Turkish heritage. Due to the parental background (socioeconomic status, education, generation, immigration background and so on), it is impossible to talk about a single type of family and language practices. Language used in the families show great variation. In line with macro-sociolinguistic circumstances, families make different choices. In this Chapter, we discuss a multitude of factors that might inhibit or encourage language maintenance. Immigrant parents do not make their language use-choice decisions in isolation. The dominant language ideology in the host society has strong impacts on the parents. The media, educational institutions, the politics and the general discourse in the society influence parental choices. At the same time, deeply embedded cultural values and identity issues impact parents’ language practices. In this Chapter, by reflecting on family language policy of Turkish heritage families in Australia and the Netherlands, we will discuss the relationship between state integration policies, family resources, parental background and family language policies (beliefs, practices and management). By reflecting on the following research questions, we will examine the factors impacting family language policy among Turkish-Australian and Turkish-Dutch groups.

4.1 Introduction

1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

87

What are the underlying language beliefs and ideologies behind different types of language socialization practices in families with a Turkish heritage? How do language ideologies influence language practices in the families? What is the effect of family type (single parent, both partners Turkish speaking, partners from different generations [1st, 2nd or 3rd], mixed heritage partners, language dominance patterns of the partners) on family language policies? What type of economic, linguistic, and social capital resources are available for parents? In addition, in what way does the availability of resources affect family language policies? To what extent do teachers and schools influence families’ language use choices? What are the effects of social media, the Internet and other technologies on language management practices of Turkish immigrants?

Based on the above research questions, we examine research evidence on family language policy and its connection with language maintenance or shift as well as acculturation orientations. By using both qualitative (Australia and the Netherlands) and quantitative (the Netherlands) evidence, we show that there is huge diversity among parents from a Turkish-speaking heritage. As opposed to many studies claiming homogenous acculturation orientations and language practices, this study shows cross-national and cross-sectional variation across parental generations.

4.2 The Link Between Language Maintenance/Shift and Family Language Policy Traditional studies of language maintenance and shift used sociolinguistic models after Fishman’s pioneering study (1964). Fishman examined the rivalry between the minority languages and the dominant host language in intergroup settings and established language maintenance and shift as a field of systematic inquiry. Innumerable publications documented language maintenance and shift in multiple communities ranging from indigenous to immigrant minorities over the years. In the Australian context, Michael Clyne did most work on language maintenance and shift using Australian Census findings. Clyne’s (e.g., 1991, 2003) extensive work on language contact and immigrant languages has shown that the family home is a crucial site of language maintenance. When parents and the overall language community consider heritage language as a core value (Smolicz, 1981), language maintenance becomes much more sustainable. The family remains for most immigrant groups and their younger generations the main domain for heritage language use (Pauwels, 2005). The presence of heritage language speakers in the family, especially the ones with lower host language proficiency levels, is conducive to language maintenance. In order to show the complexity of language contact settings and socio-cultural adaptation processes, the dynamics of language maintenance and shift within a family language policy framework are discussed below. There is rich research evidence on

88

4 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy

contact induced language change as well as on language attrition both in the European and North American context, (for instance, Gürel, 2004; Gürel & Yilmaz, 2011; Dogruöz & Backus, 2009); however, because the focus of this Volume is on social psychological, cultural and sociolinguistic issues, there is no extensive treatment of linguistic topics. In many national contexts, studies on immigrant multilingualism were conducted from a number of different perspectives. Initially, language use and language choice of immigrants were investigated by sociolinguists, demo-linguists, educational linguists and even cross-cultural psychologists. In a macro-sociolinguistic perspective, researchers have investigated patterns of language maintenance and shift in immigrant communities through a so-called sociology of language approach (Fishman, 1985). In order to identify relevant variables in language maintenance or shift, an examination of factors influential in such processes is necessary. It is also hard to predict whether a speech community would maintain its language or would shift to the dominant language over time. The term ‘language maintenance’ has been used in a number of ways in the literature; however, a distinction is made between a speech community’s and an individual’s language maintenance. Language maintenance refers to a speech community’s use of its first language in a number of domains in a language contact situation. The choice and the efforts of maintaining a minority language might be made on the basis of the instrumental functions of the language involved, such as receiving goods or services, or on the basis of the symbolic functions such as ethnic identification and sense of cultural belonging (Kipp et al., 1995). Individuals’ maintenance of a first language in a second language environment is usually referred to as language retention (Hyltenstam & Stroud, 1996). The opposite of societal language maintenance is termed language shift, and the term language loss is used for the opposite of language retention. How much societal use of a first language is considered language maintenance or how much societal use of a second language is considered language shift is still not precisely specified. There are a number of models for the investigation of language maintenance and shift as reported by Clyne (1991). The models developed by Kloss (1966), Giles et al. (1977), Smolicz (1981), and Bourdieu (1982) offer different factors that are important in language maintenance (or shift). Hyltenstam and Stroud (1996) examine language maintenance factors at the societal level, at the group level, and at the individual level. As shown by earlier research, a minority group’s internal characteristics may promote language maintenance or shift. The types of interaction between the minority and the majority is another factor to be considered. Finally, the factors at the individual level such as language choice and socialisation patterns constitute the third dimension. The interaction of these factors varies quite fundamentally in different linguistic contexts. Different speech communities or individuals behave in different ways under similar circumstances. The Australian context is a clear example of the social and linguistic variation. All immigrant groups live under similar legal circumstances but their linguistic and cultural integration patterns show huge variation. While the Macedonian and Vietnamese groups show high degrees of language maintenance, immigrants from Dutch and German heritage show high levels of language shift.

4.2 The Link Between Language Maintenance/Shift …

89

The issues concerning the connections between societal factors and an individual’s actual perception of the situation as reflected in their language behaviour is examined later in this chapter. In this section, the factors that are influential on language maintenance and shift of speech communities are documented to identify relevant variables in language maintenance or shift processes. The factors involved in language maintenance or shift are divided into two categories as those affecting a speech community and those affecting individuals within a speech community (Kipp et al., 1995). In that division, birthplace, age, period of residence, gender, education/qualifications, marriage patterns, prior knowledge of the host society language, reason for migration, and language variety are included in the category of individual factors. ‘Group factors’ are listed as “size and distribution of an ethnic group, the policy of the host community towards community languages, the position of the language within the cultural value system of the group, and proximity or distance of the community language to or from English” (Kipp et al., 1995: 123). However, Kipp et al. (1995) admit the fact that it is not always easy to draw the line between individual and societal factors as there is an ongoing interaction between an individual and the speech community that he or she belongs to. In most of the cases, these factors are interrelated both on the individual and on the group level. Regarding the factors on the individual level, whether a person is first, second, or third generation is determined on the basis of his/her birthplace and the age at the time of immigration. First generation immigrants compared to subsequent generations are more language maintenance oriented because they are usually literate in the first language, less proficient in the second language, and they have stronger ties with the homeland. This claim is supported by Australian census data in different periods: There is greater language shift in the second generation than in the first. A strong relationship is assumed between age at immigration and the acquisition (or learning) of the second language, which in turn affects language use. Usually, more proficiency in host language suggests more shift to second language, and less proficiency in host language implies more heritage language maintenance. Period of residence combined with settlement patterns and family networks is another factor that may have an effect on language maintenance. The duration of exposure to the second language is believed to have some influence on maintenance or shift. However, if the person lives in a region where the majority is from his/her L1 background, as in the case of some ethnic communities in Australia, then language maintenance is much more likely. Accordingly, whether a person is single or married is equally influential. Also, the attitudes towards the homeland and reasons for migration are some other factors reported by Kipp et al. (1995). Even though Clyne (1991) does not support the relevance of a one-to-one relationship between language shift and period of residence, Australian census data shows an inclination towards an increased shift to L2 with a longer period of residence. Multiple studies show that gender has an influence on the degree of language maintenance in different communities. Especially in the Australian context, women maintain their L1 better than men do (Clyne, 1991). Kipp et al. (1995) identify a number of possible explanations for women’s L1 maintenance. First, it is presumed that because first generation women, in general, have lower levels of L2 proficiency than

90

4 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy

men do, they have higher language maintenance rates. In this way, a link between L2 proficiency and L1 maintenance is assumed. Furthermore, another link is suggested between gender and exogamy. Because women tend not to marry outside their own ethnic groups and also because they do not need to work outside the home, their exposure to L2 is more limited. Also, child-rearing is believed to be another factor contributing to women’s L1 maintenance. It is important to point out that in our super diverse societies, traditional gender roles disappear more and more and also the above assumptions were more valid for 70’s and 80’s. In today’s super diverse societies, traditional gender role attributions and interethnic relations are becoming more and more obsolete. Education has been identified as a relevant variable in language maintenance and shift studies. According to Kloss (cited in Kipp et al., 1995) education is an ambivalent factor that may either result in a faster shift to societal language or in greater maintenance of the heritage language, which is also confirmed in more recent research (Yagmur and van de Vijver, 2012). Depending on the language contact context and the speech community concerned, either a complete shift to L2 (as in the case of educated immigrants settling in Canada) or a stronger language maintenance of L1 (Greeks or Macedonians in Australia) is observed. The type of marriage (endogamous or exogamous) is another important variable in language maintenance and shift studies. When members of a minority language group marry someone from another ethnolinguistic group, the chance of shifting to the mainstream language is most likely. This is supported by findings in the Australian context that children of mixed marriages are characterised by almost full monolingualism. Out-marriage among second generation immigrants, with the exception of immigrants from Greek, Lebanese, and Turkish backgrounds, is reported to be very high in Australia. Nevertheless, latest trends show higher exogamous marriages even among more conservative groups like the Greeks and the Turks. Knowledge of L2 prior to immigration is another ambivalent factor in language use as it facilitates faster access to the majority language institutions and culture, thus promoting language shift. Kipp et al. (1995) suggest that prior knowledge of L2 may also promote language maintenance as a migrant with L2 skills might have more time to foster L1 skills in the L2 environment. However, without much empirical support this argument may not be highly convincing. The reason for migration is also reported to be one of the factors involved in language maintenance or shift. If the migrants have positive feelings towards the host country, their language use patterns may be influenced. However, again depending on the context and the speech community, there is variation in language behaviour of voluntary and refugee migrants. As Kipp et al. (1995: 121) report, “a voluntary immigrant may have positive feelings towards the host country and its culture without necessarily rejecting his or her own, or may desire a complete break with the country of origin.” In either case, whether there will be language maintenance or shift is not certain. Some refugees are keener on maintaining their heritage language than voluntary immigrants, or vice versa. Language variety (whether dialect or standard) is another factor to be considered in language maintenance or shift. It is commonly agreed that language maintenance chances are reduced for dialect speakers. There may be many reasons, but

4.2 The Link Between Language Maintenance/Shift …

91

one possible explanation can be insufficient or no written materials in the dialect languages. Attitudinal and social-psychological factors involved in using the standard language may be some other factors to be considered. The group level characteristics are either related to the speech community’s own characteristics, to the mainstream society, or to the interaction between the two. One of the most commonly shown factors on the group level is the size and distribution of a speech community. Basing their argument on the 1986 Australian census data, Kipp et al. (1995) report that ethnic groups maintain their L1s the most in places where they are strongly represented. Greek speakers in Melbourne and Lebanese speakers in Sydney are some examples of successful heritage language maintenance. However, in Tasmania where ethnic groups are least concentrated, Spanish and Italian groups exhibit the highest shift to English. Policies and attitudes of the mainstream society towards ethnic groups and languages should be considered one of the most important factors in language maintenance of ethnic groups. However, again, this is an ambivalent factor in that the suppression or backing of a minority language may result in either maintenance or shift in different linguistic and cultural groups. Suppression might bolster language maintenance efforts with group A, while it results in complete linguistic assimilation with group B. Moreover, Clyne (2003) suggests that the attitudes and policies of a host society may not be constant. It is generally agreed that depending on a multitude of factors (mostly economic and political), policies either support or neglect minority languages. Supportive policies of today do not mean that future policies would do the same nor do they necessarily lead to maintenance. The policy shifts observed in the Dutch context in the last two decades shows changeable nature of policies on minorities (Verbeek et al., 2015). The way heritage language is perceived by the ethnic group members themselves is another factor in language maintenance or shift. Some groups consider their heritage language as an indispensable part of their ethnic and social identity as in the case of Greek and Polish communities in Australia. The Dutch community in Australia shows the highest shift to English because the Dutch language is not vital to the maintenance of Dutch ethnicity (Kipp et al., 1995). Finally, the linguistic and cultural similarity with the dominant group is a pertinent factor in language maintenance or shift. On the basis of language shift figures, Kipp et al. suggest that attributing language maintenance or shift to “linguistic distance” between a majority and a minority language is inappropriate because whether related to English or not, language shift is observed among ethnic minority languages in the Australian context. In Kipp et al.’s (1995) argument, cultural distance rather than linguistic difference turns out to be a significant factor in language maintenance. As reported in this section, there are many factors affecting language maintenance, and in most cases, these are interrelated. In language contact situations, one’s heritage language is not a fixed and stable system but rather a changeable one. Even an internationally ‘prestigious’ language like English is reported to be lost in a second language environment (Major, 1992). According to Major (1992) disuse of an L1 inevitably leads to language attrition. Irrespective of the policy perspectives and group characteristics, individual families turn

92

4 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy

out to be crucial agencies in the socialization, heritage language and cultural maintenance in immigrant communities. Now, we turn to the discussion of family language policy and its pivotal role in language maintenance and acculturation orientations.

4.3 Family Language Policy in Turkish Immigrant Communities Culturally speaking, Turkish immigrant communities are known to have a more collectivistic orientation in their social relations. Being part of the community is important for the sense of belonging and inclusion. In discussing FLP practices of Turkish heritage parents, we need to address the link between the private and the public spheres of social life for its impact on parental aspirations regarding their children. In order for their children to receive good education and have good job prospects in life, families have to assess the opportunities and limitations that come with shift to the societal language. The same parents need to keep a balance between family-bound intimacy as well as affection for socio-emotional development of their children. Maintaining heritage identity and language is not in strife with the learning of the societal language. Families do not have ideologies like the states. They act in line with the needs of their children and the demands of the context of situation. Family language policies are concrete social practices including the use of appropriate sociolinguistic communicative resources. If parents are balanced bilinguals, they use both the heritage and the societal language in line with the demands of the communicative context. They do not make abstract ideological choices; instead, their choices are in line with the actual needs. Language use in the family is multi-layered and intertwined with culturally acceptable socialization practices. As discussed brilliantly by Blommaert (2019), nation-states make strong ideological assumptions about identity and identification of its citizens (and residents) based on language use. If the individual citizen is using another language than the national language, the state questions the loyalty of that particular person to the nation. In real life, immigrant families face similar challenges like all the other parents coming from whatever background. They care about the health, happiness and welfare of their children. Yet, states question the loyalty of people who come from a different ethnic, linguistic or religious background. This type of language-ideological policing (Blommaert, 2019) contributes to further marginalization of families who use non-national languages in their homes. ‘National language-only’ type of language ideologies undermines the use of heritage languages in immigrant families. Schools, teachers, the media and the politics find different mechanisms of language policing to limit the use of heritage languages in schools, public institutions as well as in private settings. As opposed to what policy makers imagine about language use in families, the ways in which members of speech communities think about how their young children acquire language and the appropriate ways of using it are closely tied to culturally specific notions of how one becomes a competent person, and the role of language

4.3 Family Language Policy in Turkish Immigrant Communities

93

and interaction in that process. Cultural orientations that are central throughout the life cycle to both parents and children are socialized through verbal routines, the use of registers, styles, and genres, such as narrative; and interactional strategies (Duranti et al., 2012). Given the strong influence of the sociocultural background of parents on socialization goals, Durgel (2011) claims a relationship between socialization goals, acculturation attitudes and generational status of Turkish immigrant mothers in the Netherlands. Parents in the immigration context socialize their children into the host and heritage cultures. Children’s language of socialization is a crucial component of forming cultural identity. Language socialization studies show how a child in an immigrant family adapts to the heritage language and the mainstream language (Duranti et al., 2012). Immigrant parents put effort to socialize their children into life in two cultures. If parents have sufficient resources in two respective cultures and linguistic systems, bicultural socialization does not constitute a problem. However, in cases where one of the parents do not have access to one of the languages used at home, the socialization process in the two languages and cultures is negatively influenced. Instead of trying to communicate in a language in which the parents are not sufficiently competent, it is always more beneficial to communicate with the children in the language that parents feel most dominant. Based on a large-scale mixed-method study, including both quantitative and qualitative data, Bezcioglu-Goktolga and Yagmur (2018) compared the language beliefs and attitudes of first and second-generation Turkish parents in the Netherlands. They reported similar language ideologies among first- and second-generation parents. Although second-generation parents are more positive about Dutch-oriented language practices in the home, both groups believe that Turkish should be an essential component of family life. Because parents establish a link between Turkish cultural identity and language, parents from both generations show strong attachment to Turkish language. How immigrant parents plan their home language practices play a crucial role in children’s bilingual development and socialization as well as learning of the mainstream language and maintaining the minority language.

4.4 Interaction Between Family Language Policy and Language Learning Beliefs of Teachers In this section, derived from the study by Bezcioglu-Goktolga and Yagmur (2018), we present a discussion on parental practices of home language use and teacher expectations regarding parental role in the schooling of immigrant children and the use of home language. Because parents value the opinions of teachers regarding language learning, they consult their children’s teachers. As seen from the findings of Bezcioglu-Goktolga and Yagmur (2018), there is serious mismatch between parental aspirations and teachers’ opinions. Immigrant parents often have the dilemma to raise their children bilingually or only in the societal language. They have the desire that

94

4 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy

their children maintain the heritage language and at the same time learn the school language to succeed at school subjects (De Angelis, 2011). In the case of most Turkish parents, this dilemma is weaker because Turkish is an indispensable component of Turkish identity (Yagmur, 2009, 2016) and most parents wish to transmit their heritage language to their children. At the same time, the parents desire their children to succeed in school by achieving a high level of academic Dutch. They search for expert information on raising children bilingually. Teachers are one source of such information for parents but there are also educational experts and speech therapists. Teachers are frequently approached and asked for advice on bilingualism as they are perceived to be well informed and are easily accessible to parents. The interaction between parents and teachers is influenced by various cultural factors. In many western countries, parents’ involvement in their children’s education is considered a basis to children’s success in school (Huss-Keeler, 1997). Traditionally, Turkish parents believe in the professional expertise and the authority of the teachers that their children would receive the most appropriate education in the school. In the immigration context, Turkish parents might also have similar traditional views that teachers are the single authority (Isik-Ercan, 2010). They rely on and respect teachers’ opinions. There are also factors that limit parental involvement in the immigration context. For instance, communication difficulties with the teachers due to limited skills in Dutch, limited understanding of the Dutch educational system, and mainly differences in perception of parent-teacher roles lead to limited contact between some immigrant parents and schools. The Dutch teachers, on the other hand, expect parental participation and intensive interaction with all the parents. Due to limited involvement of immigrant parents, teachers perceive immigrant parents as not being interested in their children’s schooling. Teachers’ ideologies affect their teaching practices and their expectations; consequently, they influence children’s learning and actual achievement (Young, 2014). For instance, in Belgium, due to multiple social, economic and psychological reasons, some teachers tend to build negative perceptions of immigrant children and their parents (Pulinx et al., 2015; Stevens, 2008; Strobbe et al., 2017). Teachers encourage students and their parents to use only Dutch at home and at school so that their academic achievement can be improved (Pulinx et al., 2015). Indeed, teachers suggest these monolingual practices even before school age, wishing that minority parents speak Dutch to their children during preschool years (Strobbe et al., 2017). The prevailing perspective of teachers is that home language spoken in immigrant families is not a resource but a problem that should be dealt with (Gkaintartzi et al., 2014). In this sense, there are discrepancies between teachers’ expectations for parental involvement and parental expectations. As extensively discussed by Bezcioglu-Goktolga and Yagmur (2018), the common attitude of teachers regarding the use of Turkish in the Dutch school and society is negative. Teachers associate low school achievement of Turkish children mostly with lower school involvement of parents. Parents know and appreciate the value of Dutch skills for the academic development of their children. Teachers, on the other hand, believe that Turkish parents do not pay attention to the school lives of their children. They think parents are not involved in school activities, and even when they are in

4.4 Interaction Between Family Language Policy …

95

the school, they only speak Turkish and interact mostly with other Turkish parents. Teachers advise parents that they should speak Dutch to their children as soon as children start school. Bezcioglu-Goktolga and Yagmur (2018) report that some teachers assume that most parents communicate in Turkish with their children because they do not want to learn Dutch. However, parents are aware of the importance of Dutch for schooling and future job prospects; without Dutch language skills their children cannot have access to any goods and services in the society. The problem lies with the teachers not accepting bilingual agency and bicultural upbringing of immigrant children. Teachers do not want to accept that a language other than Dutch might be used in immigrant homes. They consider this as a sign of unwillingness to integrate into the Dutch society. Dominant Dutch-only ideology in the society inevitably influences teachers as well. Some teachers think speaking a different language at home might hinder children from learning Dutch. It appears that teachers do not have a good grasp of bilingualism and language acquisition processes. This might be an outcome of less equipped teacher training programs that many primary teachers lack pedagogical formation for working with bilingual children (Haukas, 2016), which is also an outcome of monolingual ideology in wider society.

4.5 Differences in Family Language Policies in Australia and the Netherlands In this section, based on the research questions posed in the beginning of this Chapter, we compare and contrast the family language policies of Turkish-Australian and Turkish-Dutch parents. The analyses presented in this Chapter are derived from the data from Bezcioglu-Goktolga and Yagmur (2018) and Et-Bozkurt and Yagmur (forthcoming). Dutch data comes from the interviews conducted with 20 Turkish families as well as from a large-scale survey among 116 first-generation and 184sgeneration parents. Out of the 20 Turkish-Dutch families, five families included parents who were both born in the Netherlands. For the remaining 15 families, one parent was either born in the Netherlands or immigrated to the Netherlands before school age. The spouses of these parents were first-generation immigrants, who came to the Netherlands through marriage. The Turkish-Australian data included case studies of 45 families, and included observations and interviews, examining the home language use and preference, as well as ethnic identification. Out of the 45 Turkish-Australian families, 14 families (31%) included parents, who were both born in Australia, 23 families (51%) where one parent was born in Australia, and 8 families (18%) where both parents were born in Turkey. However, of the eight families, at least one or both spouses, migrated to Australia before the age of seven, confirming the second and third-generation status of parent participants involved in the research either predominately grew up in Australia, or were born in Australia. Compared to Dutch-Turkish immigrants, Turkish-Australians have much less physical contact

96

4 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy

with Turkey due to larger geographical distance between Australia and Turkey as compared to the Netherlands versus Turkey. Besides, Turkish-Australian immigrants include better educated people who came to Australia through brain-drain migration. The reason for concentrating on Turkish immigrant communities in Australia and the Netherlands lies in the differences in acculturation orientations of two respective mainstream communities. While Australia promotes diversity policies and accepts linguistic diversity, Dutch policies are more linguistic assimilation oriented (Verbeek et al., 2015). The differences of these two approaches are discussed extensively in Chap. 3. In this chapter, the focus is on the similarities and differences between second- and also third-generation parents’ family language policies in two countries. As documented in Chaps. 2 and 3, there are large differences between Turkish immigrants in Australia and the Netherlands. Demographically speaking, Turkish group is the largest immigrant minority in the Netherlands (more than 400,000 speakers); whereas, Turkish group in Australia is considerably smaller (90,000) compared to other immigrant communities. Nevertheless, because the majority of TurkishAustralian group concentrates in two major cities (Melbourne and Sydney), where they tend to reside in a number of Turkish concentration areas, social contact between Turkish speakers is strong, which increases the chances for language maintenance.

4.5.1 Language Beliefs and Practices In discussing family language policies of immigrant groups, scholars very often mention the relevance of language ideology of the majority and the minority groups. The interaction between the two ideologies is crucial in understanding the resulting practices especially in immigrant minority groups. State integration ideologies and macro level language policies influence immigrant groups’ heritage language policies. Because language practices in an immigrant family cannot be divorced from the sociocultural context, briefly discussing Australian and Dutch policies regarding immigrant minority groups is helpful. As documented recently by Spolsky (2016), migrant receiving European governments often considered the migrants as guest workers with a temporary status. Even after two generations, the third generation is still identified as ‘immigrant’. This is the main difference between Australian and Dutch discourse on diversity and immigration. Australia is historically a country of immigration and diversity is valued (at least on the paper). The fact that the thirdgeneration descendants of immigrants are still referred to as being the “foreigners” is the most telling for social inclusion/exclusion of immigrants in the European context. The terms used to denote people with an immigration background show the extent of social exclusion of some immigrant groups. Examination of some terms show that there are strong social and psychological boundaries between the ‘mainstream’ groups and people with an immigration heritage. As documented by Kraler et al. (2015) host societies develop advanced procedures to make use of statistics to categorize the society into ethnic, national and linguistic groups. The Dutch government and public institutions use terms as autochtoon (autochthonous) to describe native

4.5 Differences in Family Language Policies in Australia …

97

Dutch to indicate indigenous, native and authentic, and allochtoon (allochthonous) to identify those who are non-native, born elsewhere and basically outsiders. In the Australian context, anyone who is born on the Australian soil is considered Australian irrespective of the ethnic or linguistic background of parents. Inclusive language used by Australian policy makers influence self-identification of Australian-born generations. As shown by Yagmur (2016) great majority of second and third-generation Australian born people from Turkish-Australian heritage were happy to call themselves Australian or Turkish-Australian, where ‘Turkish’ is a modifier for the main identification. Yagmur and van de Vijver (2012) documented the outcomes of their cross-national research on self-identification and language use-choice among Turkish immigrant groups. Turkish immigrants in Australia appear to better integrate into the mainstream society compared to their counterparts in the European context because they do not see any threats to their individual identities and cultural values. When ethnic groups feel threatened, they hold onto their ethnic and cultural values, which was documented in Yagmur and van de Vijver (2012). The prevalent attitude in the Netherlands is against the maintenance of immigrant minority languages. Given the restrictive Dutch-only policies as opposed to inclusive Australian policies, Turkish immigrants in the Dutch context might comply with the state integration policies and use Dutch more in their homes. Australia has an official policy of multiculturalism and cultural diversity is valued. The state provides funds and facilities for the maintenance of heritage languages and cultures of the immigrants. Among the Australian born immigrants the desire to identify with Australia and even to assimilate into (Anglo-)Australian culture is high. Based on earlier studies of Turkish immigrants in Australia, it was clear that especially the second-generation Turks identified strongly with Australia (Ya˘gmur, 1997, 2016). In line with the pluralistic policies of Australia, strong first language maintenance and successful sociocultural integration would be expected for different generations of Turkish immigrants. Accordingly, Turkish immigrants in the Australian context might transmit their heritage language to younger generations and hold onto their Turkish ethnic identity. The evidence obtained in the Australian and the Dutch context show some variation regarding language ideologies among second-generation Turkish parents in both contexts. Great majority of Turkish-Australian and Turkish-Dutch parents have positive attitudes towards the maintenance of their heritage language. They use Turkish in communication with their family members as well as with extended family. They are in contact with other Turkish speakers. They see Turkish as part of their cultural heritage. In the Dutch context, the families follow a similar path regarding an emphasis on Turkish maintenance, yet, they have diverse patterns regarding their language ideologies and practices. Preserving the Turkish identity was the most frequently mentioned reason for the use of Turkish in the home. As one mother stated “We are Turkish. What does it mean to be Turkish if the child does not speak a word of Turkish?” (Bezcioglu-Goktolga & Yagmur, 2018, p. 50). Dutch-born secondgeneration mother establishes a clear link between Turkishness and being able to speak Turkish. Most of the parents related Turkish language to their ethnic identification. Similarly, contact with Turkey and Turkish people in the Netherlands,

98

4 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy

the possibility of return migration, the importance of Turkish for better learning of the Dutch language, and the preservation of the mother tongue, Turkish culture, and religion were all presented as important reasons. In the Dutch context, Turkish language maintenance is seen as the survival of Turkish identity. However, in the Australian context, majority of parents put the emphasis on bilingualism in Turkish and English. Whilst many of the families believed that maintaining Turkish cultural heritage and language was important, with almost all recognising the significance of bilingualism, there were notable differences with respect to ethnic identification and language beliefs. The majority of Turkish-Australian parents (83%) believe that Turkish identity and culture is interwoven with Turkish language. However, they do not consider Turkish to be in competition with English. On the contrary, they fully support the idea that higher skills in English is the key to good education and social mobility. In both national contexts, second-generation Turkish parents’ language beliefs and ideologies are similar. They see a clear link between their ethnic identity and Turkish language skills, as a result of which, they choose to raise their (third-generation) children in Turkish and remain in contact with other Turkish speakers. Parental choices are not random. Because they are bilinguals themselves, the choice of transmitting their heritage language to the younger generation is deliberately made.

4.5.2 Language Use and Home Practices As discussed recently by Tseng (2020), language use and choice in the home and related domains are affected by broader sociolinguistic and intergroup dynamics. Parents know the value and the challenges of raising bilingual children. Based on cultural motivations and family language decisions, parents might decide to raise children in two or more languages but their decisions are affected by linguistic prejudices in the society and practical concerns such as schooling process, job prospects and so on (Spolsky, 2012). Both in the Australian and the Dutch context, majority of secondgeneration parents seem to made conscious decisions regarding heritage language use in the home domain. However, irrespective of parental decisions, language use in the homes is very dynamic and changeable. Even with the same interlocutors, there is constant code-mixing and code-switching in bilingual homes. Based on BezciogluGoktolga and Yagmur (2018) as well as Et-Bozkurt and Yagmur data (forthcoming), we can suggest that a number of factors shape the actual language use in the homes. When the family lives in a Turkish-speaking concentration suburb, there are multiple opportunities to use Turkish also outside the home. In Melbourne, TurkishAustralians concentrate in a number of suburbs, where they are in contact with other Turkish speaking neighbours. The same pattern is prevalent in the Dutch context as well. Turkish-Dutch concentrate in the same suburbs of four largest cities in the Netherlands. They build their mosques in the major concentration areas and these mosques also act as cultural centres where people meet other Turkish speaking

4.5 Differences in Family Language Policies in Australia …

99

people. The mosques also offer religious education and sometimes even Turkish classes for young children. When the first-generation immigrants arrived in the late sixties and early seventies, in order to support each other they stayed in the same suburbs and streets. Usually people, who came from the same heritage town in Turkey, preferred housing close to each other. Early immigrants brought other family members over the years and they created their extended family network in the immigration context. This created strong cultural and linguistic bonding among themselves. The second-generation usually remained in the same suburbs, which created a strong Turkish speaking social network. As we see in the Australian findings, as soon as they leave these Turkish-speaking networks or marry someone outside the Turkish speaking network, language use at home shifts to English. Based on large scale data obtained from various immigration contexts (Yagmur, 2016), it is possible to claim that strong heritage language maintenance among Turkish immigrants is due to their tightly knit Turkish speaking social networks. The following are some other factors contributing to Turkish language use in the home domain. In the Australian study, out of the 45 families, only 4 families communicate predominantly in English with their children. Turkish is used seldomly in these homes but usually with other Turkish speaking relatives or friends. One noteworthy characteristic of these English-only families is unavailability of Turkish speaking grandparents. In almost all the other Turkish-speaking families there is intensive contact with Turkish speaking grandparents. Half of the parents (n = 22) use predominantly Turkish in talking to other interlocutors in the home. Fifteen parents use Turkish and English depending on the interlocutor or the topic of the conversation. Primary social network of parents is closely correlating with home language use patterns. Those families who predominantly use English at home are in contact mainly with English speakers. People choose to be in touch with families or friends who are culturally and linguistically similar to themselves. The Dutch context shows similarities to the Australian context in terms of the variation in language use in the home. With the exception of two families, there is predominant use of Turkish. However, like in all bilingual families, there is constant mixing and switching between Dutch and Turkish. Among the Turkish-Dutch families, language practices also vary depending on the language preferences of the family members. During the interviews of Bezcioglu-Goktolga and Yagmur (2018), 21 participants (60%) reported that they prefer to speak only or mostly Turkish within the family. However, there is a shift towards Dutch in children’s language preferences. Most of the time, it is children who bring in Dutch into the conversation. In BezciogluGoktolga and Yagmur (2018) study, 26 participants (74%) agreed that, although they can interact in Turkish, children mostly or exclusively prefer Dutch, especially in interaction with their siblings. Social media use, TV and newspapers, as well as contact with the heritage country turn out to be important factors supporting Turkish language maintenance among the parents in Australia. Except the 5 English-only families, the great majority of families (88%) have Turkish satellite tv channels where they follow Turkish films, series and news. Use of social media (Facebook, WhatsApp, etc.) is predominantly in Turkish

100

4 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy

as well as in English. Especially the contacts with the relatives in parental heritage country is maintained through social media. In earlier times of migration (70’s and 80’s), the contact with the extended family members was only through letters and in seldom cases with telephones. The first author of this Book was a migrant to Australia and he had to wait for weeks to receive a response to his letters from the homeland. Only twice a week he used to get a Turkish newspaper to read two- or three-days old news. Thinking of the instantaneous mode of communication today, thanks to Internet technologies, there are much less challenges before heritage language maintenance even in a faraway migration context like Australia. Regarding contact with family and relatives in the homeland, Turkish-Dutch group is even more advantageous compared to Turkish-Australians. Because of geographical proximity, the Turkish-Dutch has the opportunity to visit Turkey multiple times in a year. They spend most of their holidays in the parental homeland. Turkish TV is part of the regular broadcasting in the Netherlands. They have access to Turkish TV without any extra fees or infrastructure. Just like Turkish-Australians, Turkish-Dutch are in frequent contact with their extended family members and friends in Turkey through social media. It is clear that group-oriented collective nature of Turkish culture supports language maintenance the most. Turkish speakers, whether second or third generation, still search contact with their relatives back in Turkey. Over the years, this contact might be less in the future generations but even in the third generation, there is considerable social contact with heritage language speakers. One of the most important factors contributing to heritage language maintenance is Turkish teaching in schools or community organizations. Compared to Turkish-Dutch community, Turkish-Australians have remarkable language learning opportunities and resources. Victorian School of Languages offers Turkish teaching in the regular schools or in the weekend schools (most commonly known as Saturday Schools). There are also community organizations catering for language learning needs of younger generations. Out of the 45 families in Et-Bozkurt and Yagmur (forthcoming) study, 28 families send their children to Turkish classes. Two families make use of home teaching. Besides, there are some private colleges in Melbourne that offer extra Turkish classes to students. Many parents demand extra Turkish classes for their children. The number of qualified teachers, materials and the infrastructure in Melbourne is much better than the resources available in the Dutch context. There is no formal Turkish teaching in Dutch primary schools. Turkish can be chosen as an elective course in the secondary schools but there are structural barriers before it (for details see Yagmur & Extra, 2011). Inclusive diversity policies of Australia certainly contribute to Turkish language teaching classes that facilitates heritage language maintenance.

4.5.3 Parental Factors Influencing Language Practices Both macro factors (e.g., the political and sociocultural environment) and micro factors (e.g., the home literacy environment, parental expectations and behaviours)

4.5 Differences in Family Language Policies in Australia …

101

are driving forces in shaping family language policy (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009). Parents’ perceptions and practices play an important role in determining the attitudes of children towards the immigrant language as well as their bilingual development (De Houwer, 2007). Whether parents are able to provide rich linguistic input in the heritage and the host language would determine the degree of bilingualism. Some parents make conscious choices about language use in the home. The majority of Turkish parents in the Australian and the Dutch context decided to use Turkish at home until their children start school. Exposure to English and Dutch in two respective contexts is inevitable because English and Dutch are the national languages. Besides, even if parents manage language activities up to a certain age, when their children start to socialise outside of the family, they start bringing the mainstream language home (Spolsky & Shohamy, 2000). As seen clearly from the Australian and the Dutch family language policy data, heritage language acquisition depends on the parental input. In the Australian context, children in five families have limited Turkish skills and communicate only in English. In all cases, the mother is a single parent or remarried a non-Turkish speaking person and English is the language of communication at home. In the Dutch context, there are only two families who made a deliberate choice of raising their children only in Dutch. Apparently, the family type (single parent, both partners Turkish speaking, partners from different generations, mixed heritage partners, language dominance patterns of the partners and so forth) has an effect on family language policies. In the majority of the families where parents are both Turkish speaking, heritage language is used extensively in the home. In families where one parent is more dominant in the societal language, such families raise their children in both the mainstream language and the heritage language. For the Turkish-Australian group, exogamy emerges as the strongest predictor of language shift. In the five families, where only English is used, there are partners from a non-Turkish speaking background, which makes English as the lingua franca at home. Linguistic dynamics in such mixed-heritage marriages are extensively discussed in the literature (see Schalley & Eisenchlas, 2020).

4.5.4 Availability of Resources for Families In majority of FLP studies, it is agreed that the type of economic, linguistic, and social capital resources are available to parents would influence language acquisition of children. Turkish-Australian and Turkish-Dutch data clearly show that home resources are crucial for language acquisition. Children, who grow up in homes where Turkish storybooks are available or where parents or grandparents tell stories in the heritage language, have better skills in the heritage language. They choose to use Turkish in communication with their parents. It is generally accepted that families from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds have difficulties providing stimulating home language learning conditions for their children such as shared book reading—literacy activities, and so forth; however, especially in the Dutch data, it is clear that rather than socioeconomic status of the parents, it is the willingness of

102

4 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy

the parents that affect children’s language acquisition. Turkish-Dutch parents have lower socioeconomic status compared to Turkish-Australian parents but they design very effective home learning activities as part of language management. For instance, using picture books to stimulate Turkish language use, reading story books and role playing, as well as teaching differences in Turkish and Dutch sounds are some of the activities. In general, having limited resources might discourage parents from taking an active role in the home learning activities and limit the home learning opportunities of children. Both in the Australian and the Dutch context, home learning activities that make use of cultural and linguistic resources available to parents are crucial for heritage language acquisition and socio-emotional development of immigrant children.

4.5.5 Institutional Support Factors In the absence of institutional support for immigrant language education, ethnic community organisations and familial support become crucial agents of language maintenance. Families take responsibility for transmitting their heritage language to the next generations (Fishman, 1991), otherwise it is bound to be lost (Fishman, 2001). Earlier research on first-generation immigrants shows that the Turkish community maintains the Turkish language and culture both in the Australian and the Dutch contexts (Yagmur, 1997, 2016). However, even if the parents are willing to support their children in the schooling process, institutional restrictions and language barriers might block their involvement. Bezcioglu-Goktolga and Yagmur (2018) documented how teachers refuse to interact with parents, who cannot speak Dutch, through an interpreter. The teacher not allowing Turkish to be used in the school also reflects the prevalent Dutch policy not allowing pupils to use a language other than Dutch in the school premises. Such strong language ideologies/attitudes might give negative message to the parents that their heritage language is not admissible to the school. Turkish-Dutch parents feel the weight of Dutch-only attitudes in the mainstream society. Policy makers, schools, and teachers continuously point out heritage languages of immigrants to be the main obstacle before higher school achievement of immigrant children. Some parents are affected by these language ideologies and avoid using their heritage language in public and in the schools. In this respect, heritage language ideologies of parents are not always sufficient for heritage language maintenance. Parental resources and actual home learning environment are more important than symbolic parental beliefs. Parents might desire to transmit their heritage language to their children but if they do not have the sufficient literacy resources and sufficient skills to teach their children, their efforts might not be fruitful. In the absence of formal heritage language teaching done by qualified teachers, the prospects for language maintenance is grim. Out of 67,000 Turkish-Dutch primary school children, around 1,200 of them receive Turkish instruction in community organizations.

4.6 Discussion and Conclusions

103

4.6 Discussion and Conclusions The evidence presented in this chapter support earlier research findings that families are the most fundamental agents of language maintenance. There are many factors that impact heritage language maintenance efforts of minority groups. In explaining language maintenance and shift, the link between macro-sociolinguistic and individual (or group) level interactions are important to document. In this Chapter, we aimed at explaining the link between individual family dynamics and larger societal factors such as intergroup relations, contact with the larger social network, schools and societal organizations. It is important to link macro level state policies to individual and group level strategies to understand the dynamics of heritage language maintenance. By comparing Turkish-Australian families’ language policies to Turkish-Dutch families, we identified the factors that are most influential on family language policies in two different national settings. In pluralistic Australia, second- and third-generation Turkish parents still use Turkish as their home language with the intention of transmitting it to younger generations. In spite of the negative societal circumstances, such as social exclusion and xenophobia, second-generation Turkish-Dutch families hold onto their heritage language as well. In many minoritymajority settings it is shown that systemic social discrimination and the perception of non-functional/useless status attributed to the home language lowers the interest in home language learning (Banda, 2000). However, in the case of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands, in spite of strong stigmatization of Turkish language (see Yagmur, 2015, 2019), second- and third-generation Turkish-Dutch continue learning and transmitting their heritage language to younger generations because they attribute a very high value to their ethnic heritage and language as a source of pride. Irrespective of the state policies, Turkish-Australians and Turkish-Dutch show higher levels of language maintenance even in the third-generation. Similar to Curdt-Christiansen’s (2009) findings on the Chinese parents in Canada, Turkish parents both in the Australian and the Dutch context believe in an inseparable relationship between language, culture, and identity. However, as opposed to political assumptions, Turkish parents do not have strict value judgements regarding the value of their two languages. There is no competition between their two linguistic systems. They own both languages. The mainstream language is as valuable as their heritage language. As documented in Bezcioglu-Goktolga and Yagmur (2018) as well as by Et-Bozkurt and Yagmur (forthcoming), second-generation Turkish-Australian and Dutch-Turkish parents have higher commands of English and Dutch respectively. Turkish mostly has a symbolic value for the parents. Both Dutch and English are part of their linguistic repertoires. As explained in this chapter parents and children constantly do code-mixing and code-switching; in the more fashionable terminology, translanguaging is the actual mode of language use in most immigrant homes. Linguistic competition is only in the minds of politicians and in the conceptualisation of national-language only ideologies. People from an immigration heritage choose and use the appropriate language in line with their social and cultural needs.

104

4 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy

The language policies used by the families have certain outcomes for children growing up in these families. Some second-generation Turkish-Dutch parents, for instance, reported that they only used Turkish at home until their first child started school. However, they noticed that the child had a lot of difficulties learning Dutch at school. As a result, they changed their home language strategy when their second child was born. They raised their second child bilingually (Bezcioglu-Goktolga and Yagmur, 2018). They noticed that their second child had much less problems interacting with other children at the school and had no issues of Dutch learning. Bilingual upbringing did not harm Turkish language development. On the contrary, this family’s second child has highly balanced skills both in Dutch and Turkish. Annick de Houwer’s (2020) concept of harmonious bilingualism would perfectly describe most Turkish parents’ attitudes towards their linguistic repertoires. Harmonious Bilingualism is an inclusive term to refer to a subjectively neutral or positive experience that members of a family in a bilingual setting have with aspects of that setting. As opposed to the conflictive (known also as subtractive-) bilingualism, proponents of harmonious bilingualism value their both languages equally and make use of their bilingual skills in different settings. De Houwer (2020) discusses the implications of conflictive bilingualism for parents and for their children. In most bilingual families, parents are aware that their children need to be proficient in the heritage language and in the societal language. This dual language proficiency is important for children’s overall well-being and achievements in school and work. As discussed by de Houwer, (2020) policy makers, schools and other societal institutions might present bilingualism as a problem. As we have seen it in the Dutch context, schools and teachers might present heritage language as an obstacle before the acquisition of Dutch, as a result of which parents might hesitate in raising bilingual children. Mothers in de Houwer’s study (2020, p. 76) complained about negative attitudes of other parents and children towards their home language in schools, as a result of which their children no longer wanted to speak their home language. As shown by de Houwer’s (2020) study, there is a close link between well-being of immigrant children and their proficiency in both the home and the societal language. TurkishAustralian and Turkish-Dutch parents seem to have chosen bilingualism instead of monolingualism.

References Banda, F. (2000). The dilemma of the mother tongue: Prospects for bilingual education in South Africa. Language Culture and Curriculum, 13(1), 51–66. Bezcioglu-Göktolga, I., & Yagmur, K. (2018). The impact of Dutch teachers on family language policy of Turkish immigrant parents. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 31(3), 220–234. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1504392 Blommaert, J. (2019) Family language planning as sociolinguistic biopower. In: S. Haque, & F. Le Lièvre (Eds.), Family language policy: Dynamics in language transmission under a migratory context (pp. 1–5). LINCOM GmbH.

References

105

Bourdieu, P. (1982). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16, 645– 668. Clyne, M. (1991). Community languages: The Australian experience. Cambridge University Press. Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of language contact: English and immigrant languages. Cambridge University Press. Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2009). Invisible and visible language planning: Ideological factors in the family language policy of Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. Language Policy, 8(4), 351–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-009-9146-7 De Angelis, G. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about the role of prior language knowledge in learning and how these influence teaching practices. International Journal of Multilingualism, 8(3), 216–234. De Houwer, A. (2007). Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(3), 411–424. Do˘gruöz, A. S. & Backus, A. (2009). Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of ongoing contact-induced change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 41–63. Duranti, A., Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (Eds.). (2012). The handbook of language socialization. Blackwell. Dürgel, E. S. (2011). Parenting beliefs and practices of Turkish immigrant mothers in Western Europe. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tilburg University. Et-Bozkurt, T., & Yagmur, K. (forthcoming). Family language policy among second and thirdgeneration Turkish parents in Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Fishman, J. A. (1964). Language maintenance and language shift as a field of inquiry. Linguistics, 9, 32–70. Fishman, J. (1985). The rise and fall of the ethnic revival. Mouton de Gruyter. Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages (Vol. 76). Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. A. (2001). From theory to practice (and vice versa): Review, reconsideration and reiteration. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Can threatened languages be saved (pp. 451–483). Mouton de Gruyter. Giles, H., Bourhis, Y. R., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations (pp. 307–344). Academic Press. Gkaintartzi, A., Chatzidaki, A., & Tsokalidou, R. (2014). Albanian parents and the Greek educational context: Who is willing to fight for the home language? International Multilingual Research Journal, 8, 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2014.953004 Gürel, A. (2004). Attrition in first language competence: The case of Turkish. In B. Köpke, M. Schmid, M. Keijzer, & L. Weilemar (Eds.), First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues (pp. 225–242). John Benjamins. Gürel, A., & Yılmaz, G. (2011). Restructuring in the L1 Turkish grammar: Effects of L2 English and L2 Dutch. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 2(2), 221–250. Haukås, Å. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism and a multilingual pedagogical approach. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/147 90718.2015.1041960 De Houwer, A. (2020). Harmonious bilingualism: Well-being for families in bilingual settings. In: A. C. Schalley, & A. S. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook of home language maintenance and development: Social and affective factors (pp. 63–83). Walter de Gruyter GmbH. Huss-Keeler, R. L. (1997). Teacher perception of ethnic and linguistic minority parental involvement and its relationships to children’s language and literacy learning: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00018-2 Hyltenstam, K., & Stroud, C. (1996). Language maintenance. In Goebl et al. (Eds.), Contact linguistics (pp. 567–578). Walter de Gruyter.

106

4 Language Maintenance and Family Language Policy

Isik-Ercan, Z. (2010). Looking at school from the house window: Learning from Turkish-American parents’ experiences with early elementary education in the United States. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(2), 133–142. Kipp, S., Clyne, M., & Pauwels, A. (1995). Immigration and Australia’s language resources. AGPS. Kloss, H. (1966). German American language maintenance efforts. In J. Fishman (Ed.), Language loyalty in the United States (pp. 207–252). Mouton & Co. Kraler, A., Reichel, D., & Entzinger, H. (2015). Migration statistics in Europe: A core component of governance and population research. In: P. Scholten, H. Entzinger, R. Penninx, & S. Verbeek (Eds.), Integrating immigrants in Europe. IMISCOE research series (pp. 39–58). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16256-0_3 Major, R. C. (1992). Losing English as a first language. The Modern Language Journal, 76, 190–208. Pauwels, A. (2005). Maintaining the community language in Australia: Challenges and roles for families. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(2–3), 124–131. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13670050508668601 Pulinx, R., Van Avermaet, P., & Agirdag, O. (2015). Silencing linguistic diversity: The extent, the determinants and consequences of the monolingual beliefs of Flemish teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–15.https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015. 1102860 Schalley, A. C., & Eisenchlas, A. S. (Eds.) (2020). Handbook of home language maintenance and development: Social and affective factors. Walter de Gruyter GmbH. Smolicz, J. J. (1981). Core values and cultural identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4, 75–90. Spolsky, B. (2012). Family language policy—The critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 3–11. Spolsky, B. (2016). The languages of diaspora and return. Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1(2–3), 1–119. Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E. (2000). Language practice, language ideology, and language policy. In: R. D. Lambert, & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honour of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 1–41). John Benjamins. Stevens, P. A. J. (2008). Exploring pupils’ perceptions of teacher racism in their context: A case study of Turkish and Belgian vocational education pupils in a Belgian school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(2), 175–187. Strobbe, L., Van Der Wildt, A., Van Avermaet, P., Van Gorp, K., Van den Branden, K., & Van Houtte, M. (2017). How school teams perceive and handle multilingualism: The impact of a school’s pupil composition. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017. 01.023 Tseng, A. (2020). Identity in home-language maintenance. In: A. C. Schalley, & S. A. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook of home language maintenance and development: Social and affective factors. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501510175-006 Verbeek, S., Entzinger, H., & Scholten, P. (2015). Research-policy dialogues in the Netherlands. In: P. Scholten, H. Entzinger, R. Penninx, & S. Verbeek (Eds.), Integrating immigrants in Europe (pp. 213–231). IMISCOE research series. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-162560_12 Yagmur, K. (2009). Language use and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish compared with the Dutch in the Netherlands. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(3), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630802369445 Yagmur, K. (2019). The concept of minority/minorities in the European national and supranational EU discourse. Multilingua, 38(2), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2018-0063 Yagmur, K., & Extra, G. (2011). Urban multilingualism in Europe: Educational responses to increasing diversity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1185–1194. Yagmur, K., & van de Vijver, F. (2012). Acculturation and language orientations of Turkish Immigrants in Australia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(7), 1110–1130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111420145

References

107

Yagmur, K. (1997). First language attrition among Turkish speakers in Sydney. Studies in Multilingualism, 7. Tilburg University Press. Yagmur, K. (2015). Multilingualism in immigrant communities. In: J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, & S. May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism (pp. 347–361) (3rd ed.). Springer. Yagmur, K. (2016). Intergenerational language use and acculturation of Turkish speakers in four immigration contexts. Frankfurt am Main; Peter Lang. Young, A. S. (2014). Unpacking teachers’ language ideologies: Attitudes, beliefs, and practiced language policies in schools in Alsace, France. Language Awareness, 23(1–2), 157–171.https:// doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.863902

Chapter 5

Acculturation and Educational Achievement of Turkish Bilingual Students

5.1 Introduction Researchers investigating acculturation orientations and school achievement use the commonly known survey instruments to document language use, choice, attitudes and ethnic identification and so forth. Based on the correlations between individual acculturation orientations and school success factors, researchers suggest widening gap between mainstream pupils and pupils from an immigration heritage. In many studies in the European context, school success is brought down to single ‘ethnicity’ variable, which commonly referred to as ‘political arithmetic tradition’ (Stevens et al., 2011). As discussed by Akoglu and Yagmur (2016) school achievement is a complex and multi-layered topic yet some researchers try to simplify it by narrowing it down to the ethnicity variable alone. Lower school achievement among students from an immigration heritage is a serious problem in most European countries. Factors leading to underachievement at school are multifaceted and interrelated. In the literature on bilingualism and school success, individual characteristics of minority students are shown to be one of the most influential on school failure. Because of subtractive bilingual environments, cognitive skills of immigrant minority students do not develop sufficiently compared to mainstream children. If a child’s home language is undervalued or even banned on the school ground, identity development might also be hampered. As a result, lower self-esteem among minority students might lead to lower achievement. In many multilingual immigration contexts, school segregation and ‘white flight’ is a serious problem. Due to segregated schools, there is insufficient exposure to the majority language, which in turn leads to lower proficiency in the mainstream language. It is also common knowledge that there are gaps between home and school culture due to different socialization patterns, which might also have an effect on school achievement of immigrant children. Some immigrant parents have limited proficiency in the mainstream language, which leads to restrictions in parental involvement in the schooling process of the children. Next to these structural problems, the development of first language skills of immigrant children have been underestimated in many immigration countries. The majority of studies © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 K. Yagmur and F. J. R. van de Vijver, Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Acculturation in Turkish Immigrants, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94796-5_5

109

110

5 Acculturation and Educational Achievement of Turkish …

on educational inequalities take a rather static approach by focusing on educational outcomes at one point in time rather than analysing the school career as a whole (Baysu & de Valk, 2012). In this chapter, by using data from PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) reading and mathematics achievement, we examine reading and mathematics performance of Turkish immigrant students as compared to mainstream European students. Instead of only presenting the achievement differences, we analyse the role of socioeconomic backgrounds of the groups, the impact of mainstream language proficiency, and anti-discrimination measures used in the school. In this chapter, we present evidence from our cross-national investigation to uncover factors influencing school achievement of pupils from Turkish speaking heritage. Before we present our detailed analyses, an analysis of the issues surrounding bilingual immigrant children is presented in the next section.

5.2 Acculturation and School Achievement Recently, based on a comprehensive literature review, Phalet and Baysu (2020) documented the relationship between school achievement and acculturation orientations in the European context. They identified institutional factors and discrimination experiences of young pupils to be continuing sources of identity threat impacting school success. The link between school achievement and acculturation has been investigated in different national contexts; however, there have not been many studies investigating this important matter in a cross-national and cross-sectional design. As shown by Phalet and Baysu (2020) academic contexts that threaten minorities’ sense of belonging undermine their achievement. Social exclusion and stigmatization of minority children lead to lower school achievement. Schachner, Juang, Moffit, and Van de Vijver (2018) proposed that school success or failure depends on the inclusion of minority students in the school environment. The more discriminated they feel, the more alienated they are. School achievement cannot be divorced from macro societal circumstances such as socio-cultural factors, political discourse surrounding minorities, educational policies and intergroup relations as well as parental background factors. Nowadays, most urban schools in Western Europe have multilingual student populations. Pedagogical approach used in monolingual schools might not always be appropriate in today’s multilingual schools. A bilingual pedagogical approach would be more suitable for such schools. In spite of large bilingual student populations, most of the European countries still hold onto monolingual pedagogies. Children who learn the mainstream language as a second language need to receive bilingual instruction when they start school. However, let alone bilingual schooling, even transitional bilingual programs are not offered in the European schools. There are many reasons for this deliberate choice regarding immigrant languages. We need to point out that bilingual education in the national language and a prestigious language (such as Dutch plus English or German plus English) is highly appreciated both by policy makers and

5.2 Acculturation and School Achievement

111

by the schools. Individual bilingualism or plurilingualism is mostly seen as an asset across the globe. However, bilingualism in a less prestigious immigrant language and a majority language is not always valued. German plus English or French plus German bilingual schools are quite common in the European context. Cognitive, linguistic and social advantages of bilingualism is certainly valued by policy makers and parents. The problem lies with minority languages. As shown by Language Rich Europe (LRE) project (Extra & Yagmur, 2012), bilingualism in a national language and an immigrant language is not valued by policy makers and school managements. On the contrary, such bilingualism is considered harmful for language development of children from an immigration heritage (Cummins, 2000). There are multiple reasons of these negative attitudes towards immigrant bilingualism. Most basically, immigrant minority languages are most often associated with problems of poverty, underachievement in schools, social and cultural problems, as well as lack of integration into the society of residence. In most immigration contexts, legally, socially, and economically, immigrants are not considered equal members of the mainstream society; instead, they are often considered as temporary, marginal, or even undesired within the host society. Learning and certainly the teaching of immigrant minority languages are often seen as obstacles to integration by speakers of dominant languages and by policy makers. At the European level, guidelines and directives regarding immigrant minority languages are negligible and outdated. Immigrant languages are not deemed to have any significant value due to a number of misconceptions or misrepresentations. First, it is common practice to refer to immigrant minority groups in terms of nonnational residents and to their languages in terms of non-territorial, non-indigenous, or non-European languages (Extra & Yagmur, 2004). The call for integration is in sharp contrast to the language of exclusion used by most European institutions. This conceptual exclusion rather than inclusion in the European public discourse derives from a restrictive interpretation of the notions of citizenship and nationality. In spite of having the citizenship of their country of residence, many immigrants, including third or fourth generation, are still considered as outsiders in the mainstream public discourse. A second major characteristic of the European public discourse on immigrant minority groups is the focus on integration. This notion is both popular and vague, and it may actually refer to a whole spectrum of underlying concepts that vary over space and time (Yagmur, 2019). The extremes of the conceptual spectrum range from assimilation to multiculturalism. National languages are often referred to as core values of cultural identity. Paradoxically, in the same public discourse, immigrant minority languages and cultures are commonly conceived of as sources of problems and deficits and as obstacles to integration, while national languages and cultures in the European Union (EU) are regarded as sources of enrichment and as prerequisites for integration. Given the wide-spread concerns about social cohesion and national unity, politic and media discourse on immigrant integration is rather negative in general. Given the importance of social factors on school achievement, further discussion on bilingualism and schooling of students from an immigration heritage is provided in the next section.

112

5 Acculturation and Educational Achievement of Turkish …

5.3 National Language Versus Minority Languages Public and political discourse has its effects on the educational policies. Nation-state ideology uses schools as the most important apparatus to instil the national ideology in young minds. Achieving social cohesion and national unity through a common language has been one of the most important goals in nation-states. As long as other languages are seen as a threat to the national language, assimilation policies would be enforced. Schools are the most important sites for the state to impose institutional power and to distribute social capital. Teachers are social agents who execute institutional power in subtle ways through their teaching practices based on official curricula but also through the way, they assign value to the linguistic resources the children bring into the classroom. Teachers who ignore various linguistic resources of multilingual children and who regard their competences in the dominant school language as flawed or even incompetent, produce power differences amongst students and contribute to the feeling that being monolingual means feeling superior (Moyer & Rojo, 2007, 7). Educational institutions and teachers’ misconceptions about language and learning lead to serious linguistic, emotional and social problems among immigrant minority students and their parents. As reported by Helot and Young (2002), some teachers believe that speaking an immigrant language at home delays the acquisition of the national language and consequently integration into the mainstream society. Such views are not unique to the European context, Collins (2012, 201) reports that American teachers and administrators believe that Spanish speaking children might have learning problems in the school because they speak a different language at home. On the basis of a large scale Languages in a network of European excellence project (LINEE), Franceschini (2011) reports that many of the teachers in their research believe that using a home language other than the national language might be an impediment to the students’ learning of the official language because the home language could confuse the learners. Franceschini points out the most important problem by emphasizing the role of teachers in negatively influencing the parents. Some teachers misinform most immigrant parents by giving inaccurate information on the role of home languages in the learning of school languages. Parents are advised not to speak their native language with their children. This unfounded and inaccurate suggestion has serious cognitive and linguistic implications for language and emotional development of immigrant children. If parents are not fully proficient in their second languages, they will communicate in a restricted code, which would seriously hamper the level and quality of communication between parents and children. Through language, parents are able to train and socialize their children. They communicate their norms and values to their children. Most important of all, love and trust is communicated primarily through language. If parents do not have full competence in the mainstream language, speaking only in a deficient second language with their children would limit the whole communication process. Language skills and cognitive skills go hand in hand. If linguistic skills are not developed sufficiently, concept development and cognitive skills would be affected as well. In the case of

5.3 National Language Versus Minority Languages

113

most immigrant children, limited skills in their first language lead to lower skills in mainstream language skills as well (Cummins, 1979; Verhoeven, 1994).

5.4 Educational Systems and Immigrant Incorporation Regimes As indicated by OECD (2012a, 2012b), integrating children from an immigration background is a serious challenge for immigrant receiving societies. The level of integration among immigrant children shows the effectiveness of social policy in general and educational policy in particular. Education systems that provide equal chances for all students irrespective of their ethnic or linguistic background are the systems that work. If students are disadvantaged due to their ethnolinguistic, cultural, social or religious background then we can talk about inequality and unfair treatment. The report Untapped Skills (OECD, 2012a, 2012b) has accurately shown the extent of the problem that even after adjusting for socio-economic background, there remains a huge performance gap between immigrant and non-immigrant students across countries. The gap is much larger in countries with highly stratified school systems such as Austria, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland, while the gap decreases in countries with low stratification levels such as Denmark and Sweden. Hochschild and Cropper (2010) examined the role of educational policies that affect immigrant children. They assumed a clear link between immigration and schooling regimes. They claimed that if an immigration regime is able to educate all of its students fairly well or at least all students get a fair chance for improvement, then most possibly such countries would have positive integration policies as well. In comparisons between countries, the disparity between native-borns and immigrants turned out to be slightest (less than 50 points) in pluralistic countries like Australia and Canada; while the disparity reached 300 points in Switzerland, Germany, and Belgium. Other international investigations indicate that compared to other OECD countries, minority language children in Germany are particularly disadvantaged in their literacy achievement (OECD, 2010). The achievement gap between German and minority language students in Germany is especially pronounced for students with a Turkish language background, even after controlling for social and educational background characteristics (Limbird et al., 2014). In some comparative studies, researchers identified some factors to have the most explanatory power in explaining the large differences between immigrant children and mainstream students. Language spoken at home, religious background, and the extent of ethnic diversity are shown to be the causes of large differences (Ammermüller, 2005; Driessen & Merry, 2011; Dronkers, 2010; Level, Dronkers, & Kraaykamp, 2006). Researchers in the German, Austrian and Dutch context claimed that speaking a different language other than the mainstream language leads to lower outcomes. However, as shown in OECD analysis (2012a, 2012b) language used at

114

5 Acculturation and Educational Achievement of Turkish …

home does not account for the differences between achievement levels of immigrant students; but, mother’s level of education makes a difference, which points out the quality of linguistic input in the home context. Other research findings from educational linguists indicated that parental involvement is crucial in accounting for children’s language development and higher school achievement. Parents who are involved in their children’s lives, who are responsive, who spend time with them and enjoy joint activities such as book reading foster their children’s cognitive as well as their language and socio-emotional development (Levin & Shohamy, 2012; Leyendeckera et al., 2011; Schwartz et al., 2009). In order to explain the differences between immigrant and native children, most studies concentrated on the characteristics of the immigrant receiving countries; however, some other scholars focused on the background characteristics of immigrant pupils themselves. Level, Dronkers, and Kraaykamp (2006) brought forward the relevance of origin countries in explaining academic performance of immigrant students. They specifically assessed how characteristics of origin countries such as religion, economy, and politics were associated with academic performance of immigrant students. Considering the fact that most immigrant pupils belong to third or fourth generation descendants of first immigrants, using heritage countries’ characteristics as indicators for the analyses might be seen as shifting the responsibility of the mainstream educational systems. In another study, Dronkers (2010) even claim that pupils from Islamic countries have substantially lower educational performances, which cannot be explained on the basis of their individual socioeconomic backgrounds, the school characteristics or the characteristics of the education system. It is important to remember that most immigrant children attend highly segregated schools in inner city suburbs in some European urban centres. School achievement in the schools of such poor suburbs is quite low. Instead of searching for the real causes of school failure, some researchers even blame the victims. It is even claimed that ethnic diversity in schools is correlated with lower educational achievement (Dronkers, 2010). According to Dronkers, the higher is the ethnic diversity is, the lower is the educational achievement is. Dronkers (2010) bases his arguments on the findings of international PISA study. Instead of looking into crucial factors such as the facilities in the schools, the number of children in each class, teachers’ qualifications and skills, parental involvement, SES level of the parents and so forth, he takes the degree of the ethnic diversity of the school as the only variable to explain school failure. Such unfounded claims strengthen the prejudice among native parents against multicultural schools. Ethnic diversity and multilingualism become problems in the mainstream discourse, which leads to further ‘white flight’ from such schools (Küppers & Yagmur, 2014).

5.5 Empirical Evidence

115

5.5 Empirical Evidence The results of PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) have been analyzed from different perspectives by numerous scholars all over the world, comparing achievement, student backgrounds, school characteristics, and their relationships. In this chapter, we are interested in immigrant performance, more specifically in the educational achievement of Turkish immigrant students in different countries as a function of individual characteristics, such as socioeconomic status, and country characteristics, such as educational policies vis-à-vis immigrants. Lower school achievement among immigrant minority children is a serious issue in most European countries. We primarily aimed at deepening our understanding of the achievement differences by concentrating on a single immigrant group in multiple national contexts, as recommended in acculturation research (Sam & Berry, 2006). Turkish immigrants are present in many of the PISA participating countries. Given the 60 years of immigration history, the third generation of Turkish immigrant pupils is now attending Western European schools. By comparing PISA outcomes of Turkish immigrants in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, we examined the presence of achievement differences across these countries and their background, notably how these differences relate to national integration policies. We first discuss individual- and country-level factors that presumably have a bearing on school achievement in the context of our empirical examination.

5.5.1 Individual-Level Factors in School Achievement Among Immigrant Children Many immigrant children attend schools in disadvantaged inner city suburbs. School achievement in the schools of such poor suburbs is often quite low. The OECD (2012a) report Untapped Skills has shown that an important source of performance differences between mainstreamers and immigrants in PISA may be related to socioeconomic status, which tends to be low in these suburbs; yet, even after adjusting for socioeconomic background, there remained a huge performance gap between immigrant heritage and non-immigrant students across PISA countries.

5.5.2 Country-Level Factors in Immigrant School Achievement The high-affluent countries in Europe with Turkish immigrant students do not show large differences in educational expenditure, a known correlate of country differences in cognitive test scores and educational achievement scores (Brouwers, Van de Vijver, & Van Hemert, 2009; Van de Vijver, 1997). However, these countries are

116

5 Acculturation and Educational Achievement of Turkish …

known to differ in immigration and multiculturalism policies, which could have a bearing on school climate and pupil performance. Different classification systems of multiculturalism policies have been proposed in the literature. Helbling (2013) argues that the observed weak to moderate associations between the systems are due to lack of overlap of indicators. We chose the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) (Huddleston, Niessen, Chaoimh, & White, 2011) as it provides detailed information about educational policies of various countries and educational performance of immigrants. We wanted to test the hypothesis that more inclusive policies would lead to higher school performance among immigrant children. Another system-level variable of secondary schools with potential influence on student outcome is tracking (also known as streaming and stratification). In educational tracking systems, students are placed in classes or schools in line with their past performance. For example, countries like Germany and the Netherlands make a split between more university-preparatory streams and more vocationally oriented streams in secondary schools. Reviewing evidence from the US, Kao and Thompson (2003) found that placing immigrant students in the lower tracks decreases their performance (controlling for parental background factors and on top of the predictable difference that students in such tracks show lower educational achievement). Assigning immigrant students to higher tracks tends to boost their performance. Schnepf (2007) found the same across ten affluent OECD countries in different educational achievement studies, including PISA. The effect on achievement may be due to better opportunities to learn in higher tracks (Callahan, 2005).

5.6 The Data In order to find answers to the issues we raised in this chapter, we designed a study to investigate the relationship between language skills and mathematical skills of students from an immigration heritage and from a mainstream heritage (Arikan, van de Vijver, & Yagmur, 2017). The research evidence presented in this Chapter is primarily derived from Arikan et al. (2017). We examine the role of individual-level characteristics, such as socioeconomic status, and country-level characteristics, as multicultural policies, to understand performance differences within and between European countries. In addition, we examine performance of Turkish mainstreamers (in Turkey) as a comparison with Turkish immigrants can help to test the claims that low test performance is an inherent characteristic of linguistic, cultural, and religious groups of immigrants in Western Europe (e.g., Ammermüller, 2005; Driessen & Merry, 2011; Level, Dronkers, & Kraaykamp, 2006). In the study, we hypothesized that (1) reading and mathematics performance of immigrant Turkish students (immigrant Turkish students henceforth) would be lower than mainstream European students from various countries (mainstream European students henceforth); (2) immigrant Turkish students in countries with more inclusive national policies would show higher scores. In addition, we were interested in comparing the influence of individual and country factors on achievement.

5.6 The Data

117

Table 5.1 Number of mainstream and Turkish immigrants students in PISA 2009 reading test and PISA 2012 mathematics test Country

PISA 2009 reading

PISA 2012 mathematics

Mainstreamers

Turkish immigrants

Mainstreamers

Turkish immigrants

Austria

1458

89

1023

62

Belgium

1555

49

1751

85

Denmark

1169

110

1415

124

Finland

–

–

1597

33

Germany

958

93

849

84

Liechtenstein

26

5

22

5

Netherlands

2204

49

1024

43

Switzerland

1920

75

1750

76

Turkey

1527

–

1472

–

Total

10,817

470

10,903

512

5.6.1 Participants We employed data from 1527 mainstream Turkish students in Turkey, 470 immigrant Turkish students from seven countries and 9290 mainstream European students from seven countries for the PISA 2009 reading test and 1472 mainstream Turkish students from Turkey, 512 immigrant Turkish students from eight countries and 9431 mainstream European students from eight countries for the PISA 2012 mathematics test (see Table 5.1). Immigrant Turkish students in this study were defined as students who participated in PISA outside of Turkey and were born in Turkey, or their mother and/or father were born in Turkey, or the language spoken at their home was Turkish (immigrant Turkish students). European mainstreamers (mainstream European students) were students who were born in that country (as were their parents) and whose language spoken at home is the main language of the country.

5.6.2 Measures PISA 2009 and PISA 2012 studies gathered data on student performance by means of reading and mathematics tests respectively. PISA uses a rotated test design with booklets in which each student receives a limited number of items, while the booklets are used together to cover a large universe of items (OECD, 2013). PISA releases samples of these items. As contents of items are necessary to understand the nature of the item bias in the DIF analyses, the present study used released sample items of PISA to define reading and mathematics performance. In the 2009 PISA reading test, there were 9 released items, 5 multiple choice and 4 items with a constructed (open

118

5 Acculturation and Educational Achievement of Turkish …

end) response, whereas in the 2012 PISA mathematics test, there were 13 released items, 6 multiple choice and 7 constructed responses. All of these 9 reading and 13 mathematics items were answered by all countries presented. Information on various background variables was collected. Student-level variables were gender, immigration status, and an index of economic, social and cultural status, which is a combination of the highest occupational status of parents, the highest educational level of parents, family wealth, cultural possessions, and home educational resources (OECD, 2012b, 2014). Among country-level variables (data not included in the PISA data matrix but collected elsewhere), the Human Development Index (UNDP, 2014) is a summary of key dimensions of human development such as a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and having a decent standard of living which is created by the United Nations Development Program. The higher the Human Development Index of a country, people are expected to have longer life expectancy at birth, more years of schooling, and more purchasing power. The school stratification index, another country-level variable, refers to the age of student selection for higher education and the availability of alternative routes to higher education (Griga & Hadjar, 2014). The higher the school stratification index of a country, the fewer the alternatives for students to access to the higher education institutions (e.g., the more difficult it is to move from vocational to university prep education). The other country-level variable was MIPEX III scores, such as education domain score, general integration score, and anti-discrimination score (Huddleston et al., 2011). A high MIPEX score refers to a more inclusive integration policy. All country characteristics are presented in Table 5.2. Table 5.2 Migrant integration policy indicators, school stratification index, and human development index of countries Country

General integration score

Education domain score

Anti-discrimination score

School stratification index

Human development index

Austria

42

44

40

3 (High)

0.881

Belgium

67

66

79

3 (High)

0.881

Denmark

53

51

47

2 (Average)

0.900

Finland

69

63

78

1 (Low)

0.879

Germany

57

43

48

3 (High)

0.911

Netherlands

68

51

68

3 (High)

0.915

Switzerland

43

45

31

2 (Average)

0.917

5.6 The Data

119

5.6.3 Data Analysis As a preliminary analysis, psychometric properties of released PISA 2009 reading and PISA 2012 mathematics items were checked by reliability and item bias (Differential Item Functioning) analyses. Test reliability was assessed by computing Cronbach’s alpha. In the item bias analysis, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis was used. In SEM, invariance analysis is used to identify biased items. Item bias, differential item functioning (DIF), occurs and threatens the comparability when students of different groups (e.g., females and males) show different mean scores on an item despite their identical ability level on the underlying construct (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). A test should perform in the same manner for each group of examinees in order to have scores that can be compared across groups (Zumbo, 2007). In SEM, different levels of invariance are examined to detect item bias. In our categorical data (items are scored as correct or incorrect), two types of invariance are scrutinized: configural and scalar invariance. Configural invariance model tests whether the factor structure is the same for the groups, whereas a scalar invariance model tests whether item intercepts are the same for the groups. If the difference between configural and the scalar invariance model in terms of incremental type of model fit indices such as the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) is larger than 0.010, modification indices are investigated to identify items that affect this difference, possibly followed by the removal of these items (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Cross-cultural performance differences on reading and mathematics scores were then addressed by testing mean score performance differences of mainstream European students and immigrant Turkish students on reading and mathematics in an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for the index of economic, social, and cultural status. The same analysis was conducted to compare mainstream Turkish and immigrant Turkish students. Following these analyses, we explored the nature of the performance differences observed between mainstream European students and immigrant Turkish students firstly by conducting multilevel analysis. Student and country-level factors were used for predicting immigrant Turkish students and mainstream European students’ reading and mathematics performance. The multilevel model was conducted using MPLUS 7.11. Student responses of released reading and mathematics test were used as dependent variable. The scores on the dependent variables were estimated using the PARSCALE 4.1 program by fitting a three-parametric logistic model of item response theory, which takes into account guessing, as some of the items were multiple-choice items (Muraki & Bock, 1997).

120

5 Acculturation and Educational Achievement of Turkish …

5.7 Results 5.7.1 Psychometric Properties and Item Bias Analysis Internal consistency analysis. The values of Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients in the PISA 2009 reading test showed a median value of 0.717 [range: 0.638 (TurkishDanes) to 0.845 (Turkish-Belgians)]. For PISA 2012 mathematics test the median value was 0.745 [range: 0.697 (Turkish-Germans) to 0.784 (Mainstream Belgians)]. These values are acceptable for this study as these scores are not used for individual, high-stakes decisions (Cicchetti, 1994).

5.7.2 Mapping Cross-Cultural Differences Item-level percentage correct values. We visualized item-level performance of mainstream Turkish students versus immigrant Turkish students and item-level performance of mainstream European students versus immigrant Turkish students in these countries in Figs. 5.1 and 5.2. In reading, mainstream Turkish students had higher percentage correct values than immigrant Turkish students for each of the nine items, except for the fifth item. Similarly, mainstream European students had systematically higher percentage correct values than immigrant Turkish students for all nine items. In mathematics, mainstream Turkish and immigrant Turkish students generally had rather similar percentage correct values across all 13 items. However, between mainstream European and immigrant Turkish students, mathematics performance differences were observed in favor of mainstream European students. Mean performance differences. In order to test the first hypothesis, an ANCOVA was conducted with reading and mathematics total test scores as dependent variables separately, country as independent variable and the index of economic, social, and cultural status as covariate. Relevant assumptions (i.e., bivariate normality between achievement scores and ESCS, and absence of any interaction between the outcome variable and the covariate across groups) were tested. Bivariate normality test results (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test) showed in many countries the data follow a non-normal distribution, especially for mainstream students. As ANCOVA with two group single factor is known to be robust for non-normality, generally when skewness from one group was not in the opposite direction from the other or one was quite extreme, we concluded that these mixed results would not challenge the interpretation of the ANCOVA. A test of homogeneity of regression slopes test results showed that there were no major deviations. Mainstream students scored higher than Turkish immigrant pupils. Therefore, the hypothesis that the reading and mathematics performance of immigrant students are lower than mainstream European students was confirmed. After removing effects of economic, social, and cultural status, Cohen’s d had a median value of 0.65 for reading [range: 0.41 to 0.91] and 0.58 for mathematics

5.7 Results

121

Fig. 5.1 Percent-correct-values for PISA 2009 released reading items

[range: 0.18 to 0.79], which points to a medium-sized difference between mainstream European students and immigrant Turkish students. So, economic, social, and cultural status differences in each country had an important influence on reading and mathematics performance difference between mainstream European students and immigrant Turkish students as there was a substantial decrease in overall Cohen’s d values after correction (on average 0.26). When we compared mainstream Turkish students and immigrant Turkish students in reading and mathematics, it was found that mainstream Turkish students were more successful, especially in reading. As economic, social, and cultural status index values of immigrants Turkish students were higher than those of mainstream Turkish

122

5 Acculturation and Educational Achievement of Turkish …

Fig. 5.2 Percent-correct-values for PISA 2012 released mathematics items

5.7 Results

123

students on average, correction using this factor made the difference even bigger (see Table 5.4) (Table 5.3).

5.7.3 Understanding and Explaining Betweenand Within-Country Differences In order to better understand the nature of the cross-cultural differences, we conducted a multilevel analysis (random intercepts, random slopes) which identified factors predicting reading and mathematics performance of mainstream European students and immigrant Turkish students. Student-level independent variables were gender, the index of economic, social, and cultural status, and immigration status. Countrylevel variables were the general integration score, education domain score, antidiscrimination score, human development index, and school stratification index. Mainstream Turkish students were not included in the analysis as country level variables were not present for Turkey. All variables were standardised to facilitate the interpretation of the coefficients. For reading, the dependent variable was reading performance of students. Table 5.4 indicates that gender, the index of economic, social, and cultural status, and immigration status were significant predictors of reading performance at individual level. This multilevel model explained 13% (p < 0.001) of the within-country variation and 26–33% of the between-country variation for significant country-level variables. The explained within-country variation was significant in all cases; however, the explained between-country variation was only marginally significant for the education domain score, probably due to the small number of countries. Girls, students with higher economic, social, and cultural status, and mainstream European students showed a higher reading performance. Given the small number of countries, variables at country level were tested one at the time. Among country-level variables, the education domain score was statistically significant while the general integration score and anti-discrimination score were marginally significant. Country-level reading results implied that student performance was higher in countries with better educational integration, general integration, and anti-discrimination scores. The Human Development Index and school stratification index showed no relation with reading performance. Table 5.4 indicates that gender, index of economic, social, and cultural status, and immigration status were also significant at student-level in predicting mathematics performance of students. This multilevel model explained 13% of the within-country variation and explained 2–10% of the between-country variation (between-country variation were not significant). Boys were more successful than girls, students with high economic, social, and cultural status were more successful than students with low economic, social, and cultural status, and mainstream European students were more successful

−0.97

−0.72

−0.85

−0.86

−0.02

−0.07

−0.01

−0.29

Swiss-German

Median

Turkey

0.74

0.96

0.78

1.13

0.75

Swiss-French

0.86

−0.77

0.02

Netherlands

−0.62

0.00

Germany

–

–

–

Finland

−1.04 1.06

1.05

−0.83

−0.21

Denmark

0.13

Belgium-French

0.79 1.14

−0.99

−0.87

−0.38

0.14

Belgium-Dutch

0.95

0.65

0.54

0.91

0.41

0.55

–

0.75

0.69

0.74

0.48

Before correction

Immigrant students

Mainstream students

−1.10

−0.31

−0.09

−0.31

−0.20

−1.15

−1.04

−1.00

−0.83

−0.93

−1.04

−0.88

−0.41 −0.29

−1.41

−1.13

−1.29

−1.28

Immigrant students

−0.54

−0.50

−0.10

−0.34

Mainstream students

Mean

Mean After correction

Mathematics Cohen’s d

Reading

Austria

Country

0.07

0.78

0.93

0.54

0.77

0.78

0.53

0.96

0.61

1.20

0.97

Before correction

Cohen’s d

0.33

0.58

0.76

0.28

0.66

0.50

0.35

0.58

0.18

0.79

0.65

After correction

Table 5.3 Cohen’s d results for PISA 2009 reading and PISA 2012 mathematics before and after correction for index of economic, social and cultural status

124 5 Acculturation and Educational Achievement of Turkish …

5.7 Results

125

Table 5.4 Standardized multilevel analysis results for PISA 2009 reading and PISA 2012 mathematics test Variable

Reading (SE)

Mathematics (SE)

Estimated variance component (Reading)

Estimated variance component (Math)

Gendera

−0.264*** (0.035)

0.198*** (0.028)

0.130***

0.127***

Index of economic, social and cultural status

0.284*** (0.016)

0.287*** (0.015)

Immigration statusb

−0.538*** (0.044)

−0.539*** (0.049)

General integration score

0.101* (0.055)

−0.023 (0.048)

0.326 (0.251)

0.020 (0.081)

Education domain score

0.086* (0.033)

−0.030 (0.052)

0.328 (0.174)

0.034 (0.119)

Anti-discrimination score

0.082* (0.043)

−0.025 (0.053)

0.258 (0.211)

0.023 (0.100)

School Stratification Index

0.020 (0.053)

0.048 (0.042)

0.013 (0.076)

0.070 (0.125)

Human Development Index

0.021 (0.067)

0.053 (0.044)

0.015 (0.094)

0.104 (0.178)

Intraclass Correlation

0.030

Student-level effects

Country-level effects

0.028

gender: 0 = Female; 1 = Male. immigration status: 0 = Mainstreamer student, 1 = Turkish immigrant student. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

a Coding

b Coding

than immigrant Turkish students. No country-level variables showed significant associations with mathematics performance. Therefore, the hypothesis that mainstream and immigrant students in countries that use more inclusive national policies are more successful in math was not confirmed. Finally, for all the analysis described above, interactions of country-level variables with immigration status were analyzed; however, no interaction was found.

5.8 Discussion and Conclusions We were interested in understanding achievement differences in PISA reading and math scores of Turks in various European countries and Turkey. The study fits in a line of acculturation studies that tries to understand differences in acculturation outcomes of groups from one country of origin in different countries of destination (Sam &

126

5 Acculturation and Educational Achievement of Turkish …

Berry, 2006). The strong methodological characteristics of the PISA studies, such as probability sampling of schools and careful translation procedures, make the data attractive for comparisons of groups within and between countries. In line with these strong methodological characteristics, we found adequate internal consistencies and high levels of invariance of the data. One of the main findings of this study was that there was a large reading and mathematics performance difference between mainstream and immigrant students. When the economic, social, and cultural status of students was controlled, the difference became smaller; however, there were still medium-sized performance differences remaining. In addition, multilevel analysis showed that students who had higher score on the index of economic, social, and cultural status showed higher performance on both for reading and mathematics. As this index is a combination of educational, occupational, and wealth level of a students’ family and cultural and educational resources they have at home, our results suggest that having more of these resources is important for better performance. This result is consistent with the literature (Marks, Cresswell, Ainley, & 2006; Shin et al., 2013). In both the PISA 2009 and 2012 data, there is a huge inequality (large in terms of Cohen’s d) in socioeconomic status among mainstream and immigrant students. Our study shows that the mainstream—immigrant performance gap has at least partly a background in socioeconomic differences of the groups. A gain in socioeconomic status of immigrant groups would presumably improve educational outcome of immigrant population. The differences are mainly a result of social and economic factors. Our empirical analysis used a novel approach that we investigated how differences in human development level, school systems, and migration policies (measured by MIPEX), might be related to reading and mathematics performance of immigrant and mainstream European students. MIPEX scores for the education domain, general integration and anti-discrimination are meaningful in explaining the differences in reading results; however, such a relationship is not found for mathematics results. This highlights the fact that linguistic factors play a major role in understanding the differences. Countries with higher MIPEX results showed higher reading performance in PISA. As a high MIPEX score refers to a more inclusive integration policy, countries with better integration policies were more successful. Our findings confirm once again that socially inclusive policies facilitate higher achievements of students from an immigration heritage. The salience of MIPEX scores for predicting withincountry ethnic differences clearly shows the potential influence of educational policy on societal inequality. We found that the Human Development Index was not a significant predictor, possibly because the range of variation in this variable was limited in our data. It is less clear why school stratification was not a significant predictor. Our study suggests that MIPEX indicators are stronger predictors than school stratification. In this respect, school inclusiveness may be more important than intellectual stratification of the school for immigrant pupils. The PISA study is meant to inform educational policy. Our study clearly shows the relevance of inclusive policies in a country for its educational performance. Our study revealed another interesting feature about the achievement gap. The gap was about 0.62 SD after correction for background variables in both reading

5.8 Discussion and Conclusions

127

and math. We also compared performance differences between Turkish mainstream and immigrant students after correction for individual-level background variables. It is important to note that whereas such a correction reduced the achievement gap in an immigrant context, the opposite was found in the comparison of the two Turkish groups. These groups differ in socioeconomic status, but also in their type of education, such as curriculum contents and pedagogy. We would argue that the increment of the achievement differences after controlling for socioeconomic status could be related to the differences in education between Turkey and the Western-European countries. Educational expenditure is considerably lower in Turkey (2.9% of GDP in 2006) than in the Western-European countries of our study (usually well over 5%). Therefore, it could well be that the increase in performance differences after filtering out socioeconomic differences reflects the differences in school resources. Further studies would be needed to pinpoint which educational features, such as curriculum contents, pedagogy, or teacher education, play a role in these country achievement differences.

5.8.1 The Complex Role of Language in the Achievement Gap There is one factor that requires more scrutiny in the explanation of mainstream— immigrant differences: language. The PISA data set does not have sufficient data about language proficiency and usage to examine its role. Yet, this role has been frequently discussed. McNamara (2011) noted that “The PISA reports explicitly link the “poor” national performance of Austria to the presence of minority language students and constructs the multilingualism of immigrant students as a problem requiring remediation” (p. 437). The lower performance by immigrants is then taken to be due to the immigrant languages obstructing learning in schools. We find this view simplistic even if it is widely shared. Poor knowledge of the medium of instruction in school will have an obvious, negative effect on the learning process. This situation applies to many low SES native and immigrant pupils. However, it is important to realize that the Turkish language as such does not create a disadvantage for immigrant students, but the disadvantage largely arises because of two other factors. First, Turkish immigrant children often grow up in low socioeconomic strata and they are exposed in their first years to a level of Turkish that is not very rich and sophisticated, which has implications for their cognitive and bilingual development. Because of subtractive bilingual environments and submersion education in host countries, cognitive skills of immigrant minority students do not develop sufficiently compared to mainstream children. Most immigrant children cannot acquire adequate proficiency levels in the societal language prior to school enrolment. As a result, low achievement is probably related to poor mastery of the majority language as well as the heritage language. As research findings have shown, there is a linguistic interdependency between first and second language skills (Bialystok, 2005). The validity

128

5 Acculturation and Educational Achievement of Turkish …

of this claim is tested within a cross-national design and the findings are presented in Chap. 6. Second, most schools in Western Europe are well equipped to teach the mainstream language to immigrant pupils, but the submersion used in the schools fail to exploit a child’s knowledge of an immigrant language to facilitate learning. The findings presented in this Chapter highlight some crucial issues in school achievement of immigrant children. Bilingualism is a valued trait; however, in the case of immigrant children, it is not valued. On the contrary, it is seen as the source of many social and educational problems. In bilingualism literature, researchers accept the close relationship between first and second language skills of bilingual students. Based on PISA data containing reading scores only in the mainstream national language, it was not possible to test this relationship. Consequently, we decided to design another large-scale study to investigate the links between first and second language skills of Turkish immigrant children, the results of which are presented in Chap. 6.

References Akoglu, G., & Yagmur, K. (2016). First-language skills of bilingual Turkish immigrant children growing up in a Dutch submersion context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(6), 706–721. Ammermüller, A. (2005). Poor background or low returns? Why immigrant students in Germany perform so poorly in PISA, Discussion Paper No. 05–18, Retrieved from http://opus.zbw-kiel.de/ volltexte/2005/2908/pdf/dp0518.pdf. van de Arikan, S., Vijver, F., & Yagmur, K. (2017). PISA mathematics and reading performance differences of mainstream European and Turkish immigrant students. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, Published Online,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-017-9260-6. Baysu, G., & Valk, H. (2012). Navigating the school system in Sweden, Belgium, Austria and Germany: School segregation and second generation school trajectories. Ethnicities, 12(6), 776– 799. Bialystok, E. (2005). Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 417–432). Oxford University Press. Brouwers, S. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Van Hemert, D. A. (2009). Variation in Raven’s progressive matrices scores across time and place. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 330–338. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.10.006. Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 305–328. https://doi.org/10.3102/000283120420 02305. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit Indexes for testing measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233–255. https:// doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5. Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290. https:// doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284. Collins, J. (2012). Migration, sociolinguistic scale, and educational reproduction. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 43, 192–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2012.01169.x.

References

129

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430490 02222. Driessen, G., & Merry, M. S. (2011). The effects of integration and generation of immigrants on language and numeracy achievement. Educational Studies, 37, 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03055698.2010.539762. Extra, G., & Yagmur, K. (Eds.). (2012). Language rich Europe. Trends in policies and practices for multilingualism in Europe. Cambridge University Press/British Council. Extra, G., & Yagmur, K. (Eds.). (2004). Urban multilingualism in Europe: Immigrant minority languages at home and at school. Multilingual Matters. Franceschini, R. (2011). Multilingualism and multicompetence: A conceptual view. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01202.x. Griga, D., & Hadjar, A. (2014). Migrant background and higher education participation in Europe: The effect of the educational systems. European Sociological Review, 30, 275–286. Helbling, M. (2013). Validating integration and citizenship policy indices. Comparative European Politics, 11, 555–576. https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2013.11. Helot, C., & Young, A. (2002). Bilingualism and language education in French primary schools: Why and how should migrant languages be valued? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5, 96–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050208667749. Hochschild, J. L., & Cropper, P. (2010). Immigration regimes and schooling regimes: Which countries promote successful immigrant incorporation? Theory and Research in Education, 8, 21–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509356342. Huddleston, T., Niessen, J. Chaoimh, E. N., & White, E. (2011). Migrant integration policy index III. Brussels, Belgium: British Council and Migration Policy Group. Kao, G., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 417–442. https://doi.org/annurev.soc.29.010 202.100019. Kristen, C., & Granato, N. (2007). The educational attainment of the second generation in Germany social origins and ethnic inequality. Ethnicities, 7(3), 343–366. Levels, M., Dronkers, J., & Kraaykamp, G. (2006). Scholastic achievement differences of immigrants in western countries: A cross-National study on origin, destination, and community effects. Robert Schuman Centre, European University Institute. Levin, T., & Shohamy, E. (2008). Achievement of immigrant students in mathematics and academic Hebrew in Israeli school: A large scale evaluation study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 1–14. Leyendeckera, B., Jäkel, J., Kademo˘glu, S. O., & Yagmurlu, B. (2011). Parenting practices and preschoolers’ cognitive skills in Turkish immigrant and German families. Early Child Development and Care, 181(8), 1095–1110. Limbird, C. K., Maluch, J. T., Rjosk, C., Stanat, P., & Merkens, H. (2014). Differential growth patterns in emerging reading skills of Turkish-German bilingual and German monolingual primary school students. Reading & Writing, 27, 945–968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-0139477-9. Marks, G. N., Cresswell, J., & Ainley, J. (2006). Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in student achievement: The role of home and school factors. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 12, 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/138036106 00587040. McNamara, T. (2011). Multilingualism in education: A poststructuralist critique. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 430–441. Moyer, M. G., & Martín Rojo, L. (2007). The state, the economy and their agencies in late modernity. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A social approach (pp. 137–160). Palgrave Macmillan.

130

5 Acculturation and Educational Achievement of Turkish …

Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (1997). PARSCALE: IRT based test scoring and ıtem analysis for graded open-ended exercises and performance tasks. Scientific Software. Inc. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background: Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (volume II). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264091504-en. OECD. (2012a). Untapped skills: Realising the potential of immigrant students. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264172470-en. OECD. (2012b). PISA 2009 technical report, PISA. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/978 9264167872-en. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/978926419 0511-en. OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 technical report, PISA. OECD Publishing. Phalet, K. & Baysu, G. (2020) Fitting in: How the intergroup context shapes minority acculturation and achievement. European Review of Social Psychology, 31, 1(1–39). https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10463283.2020.1711627. Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. Cambridge University Press. Scheele, A. F., Leseman, P. M., & Mayo, A. Y. (2010). The home language environment of monolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716409990191. Schachner, M. K., Juang, L. P., Moffit, U., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2018). Schools as acculturation and developmental contexts for youth of immigrant and refugee background. European Psychologist, 23, 44–56. Schwartz, M., Kozminsky, E., & Leikin, M. (2009). Socio-linguistic factors in second language lexical knowledge: The case of second-generation children of Russian-Jewish immigrants in Israel. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 22(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/079083108025 04119. Schnepf, S. V. (2007). Immigrants’ educational disadvantage: An examination across ten countries and three surveys. Journal of Population Economics, 20, 527–545. https://doi.org/s00148-0060102-y. Shin, S. H., Slater, C. L., & Backhoff, E. (2013). Principal perceptions and student achievement in reading in Korea, Mexico, and the United States educational leadership, school autonomy, and use of test results. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 489–527. Stevens, P. A. J., Clycq, N., Timmerman, C., & Van Houtte, M. (2011). Researching race/ethnicity and educational inequality in the Netherlands: A critical review of the research literature between 1980 and 2008. British Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 5–43. UNDP (2014). Human development index and its components. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/ en/content/table-1-human-development-index-and-its-components. Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (1997). Meta-analysis of cross-cultural comparisons of cognitive test performance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 678–709. https://doi.org/10.1177/002202219 7286003. Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2011). Capturing bias in structural equation modeling. In E. Davidov, P. Schmidt, & J. Billiet (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis. Methods and applications (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: Routledge. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. Sage. Verhoeven, L. (1994). Transfer in bilingual development: The linguistic interdependence hypothesis revisited. Language Learning, 44, 381–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb0 1112.x.

References

131

Yagmur, K. (2019). The concept of minority/minorities in the European national and supranational EU discourse. Multilingua. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2018-0063. Yagmur, K., & Konak, Ö. A. (2009). Assessment of language proficiency in bilingual children: How valid is the interdependence hypothesis? Turkic Languages, 13, 274–284. Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 223–233.

Chapter 6

The Relationship Between First and Second Language Skills of Turkish Bilingual Children: Empirical Evidence from France, Germany and the Netherlands

6.1 Introduction Turkish immigrant community is the largest group in Western Europe. Researchers from various disciplines conducted research on acculturation orientations, bilingual skills, language maintenance/shift, and school achievement of Turkish immigrant groups in various countries (for an overview see Yagmur, 2016). While the acculturation orientations of Turkish bilinguals are studied extensively, there is almost no study linking linguistic skills and acculturation orientations. The outcomes of an investigation on reading skills of bilingual Turkish children in connection with their acculturation orientations are presented in this Chapter. By using standardized instruments used in PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) and PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), the link between first and second language reading skills of bilingual Turkish children is investigated. The research findings presented here is derived from a follow up study of the research presented in Chap. 5. Given the lack of data on the link between first and second language skills, a Ph.D. project was designed by the authors. Full details of that project are available in Demirel (2019). Only the complementary evidence to the findings presented in Chap. 5 are discussed in the current Chapter. The findings of a previous research project (Arikan et al., 2017) on mathematics and reading performance differences of mainstream European and bilingual Turkish (immigrant) students in PISA 2009 highlighted the need for further evidence on the relationship between first and second language skills of bilingual Turkish speakers. One of the main findings of Arikan et al.’s (2017) study was a large reading and mathematics performance difference between mainstream and immigrant students. In addition, there were differences between Turkish bilingual children growing up in European countries and mainstream Turkish students growing up in Turkey. The differences could be an outcome of multiple interrelated factors but many educational specialists and policy makers in the European context point to the immigrant languages as the cause of lower results (e.g., McNamara, 2011). In multiple studies comparing the PISA results of immigrant and mainstream children in different OECD countries, © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 K. Yagmur and F. J. R. van de Vijver, Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Acculturation in Turkish Immigrants, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94796-5_6

133

134

6 The Relationship Between First and Second Language Skills …

the comparisons include the reading test results only in the mainstream language. In group-based comparisons, the outcomes show that bilingual immigrant students perform significantly lower than mainstream students do. Some researchers point out first language as the cause of the academic achievement differences (e.g., Ammermüller, 2005). In the absence of data on reading skills in immigrant languages as well as in the host language, making such claims is not accurate. Given the need for data both in the first and mainstream languages, Demirel (2019) study was designed to examine the relationship between the heritage and mainstream language reading skills of bilingual Turkish students. Bilingual Turkish students in three European countries, namely, France, Germany and the Netherlands took part in a cross-national research. Monolingual Turkish peers in Turkey as a reference group are also tested. Given the favourable methodological characteristics of the PISA and PIRLS studies, such as probability sampling of schools, careful translation procedures of the items, and internationally tested instruments, reading tests already used in PISA (2009) and PIRLS (2011) were used. Because Turkey participates in PISA testing, the Turkish version of the PISA reading tests were available. However, because Turkey does not participate in PIRLS testing, the reading test from the English version was translated into Turkish to be used with the students. PISA and PIRLS tests were available through the national agencies in France, Germany and the Netherlands. Using these highly standardized internationally proven testing instruments, data from bilingual Turkish children in three countries could be collected.

6.2 The Rationale of a Cross-National Design The descendants of Turkish immigrants living in Western Europe have been studied for their linguistic skills, educational outcomes and acculturation orientations for decades. Overall, the research shows that bilingual Turkish children have lower linguistic skills than their monolingual peers in European schools. They have lower educational outcomes and they tend to identify themselves as primarily Turkish. Country-specific studies provided evidence on specific educational and linguistic matters in each immigration context; however, cross-national evidence on students from an immigration heritage is not available. The current research is a crosssectional and cross-national study investigating the relationship between first and second language reading skills of Turkish students at different ages (10 and 15 year olds) in different countries (France, Germany and the Netherlands) in connection with their acculturation orientations. Studies using the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) have found links between integration policies of countries and integration patterns of immigrant groups (Huddleston et al., 2015). Researchers showed a clear link between educational outcomes of immigrant students and the integration policy used in a particular country (Huddleston et al., 2015). The policy and approach of the host country is of great importance to be taken into consideration in comparing school outcomes. According to Hochschild and Cropper (2010), immigration issues, educational

6.2 The Rationale of a Cross-National Design

135

regimes, and schooling processes are linked in different ways in each country. States that are liberal, or effective on one issue may be highly passive and ineffective on another, and countries show changes in their motivation and enthusiasm to help people through immigration and schooling programs. Policies show differences not only by country but also by region, district, school grade level, and recency of immigration (Baysu & Valk, 2012; Hochschild & Cropper, 2010). Yagmur and van de Vijver (2012) also documented that a more pluralist approach of the host country enables a strong orientation of immigrants towards the mainstream culture and language. A multicultural ideology and environment create a stronger integration orientation of the immigrants. In their study, Yagmur and van de Vijver found that immigrants who had a strong Turkish identity gave more value to Turkish and used Turkish language more. If there is a strong identification with the ethnic group, the perceived value of the ethnic language turned out to be high as well. Immigrants with a strong mainstream identity valued Turkish less. Moreover, Yagmur and van de Vijver (2012) found that Turkish immigrants have a high level of mainstream culture identification in Australia, most probably due to the multicultural climate and inclusive policies towards immigrants in that country. In contrast, in France, Germany and Netherlands they have lower levels of identification with the mainstream culture and language. Educated Turks in France showed strong signs of linguistic assimilation. Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands and Germany were comparable in terms of acculturation orientations. The gap between the German and Turkish identity was found to be larger than the gap between the Turkish and Dutch identity. The relationship between host society policies and immigrant integration is discussed in detail in Chap. 3.

6.3 The Relationship Between Heritage Language and Mainstream Language Skills Before presenting a discussion on the links between first and second language skills of immigrant children, it is necessary to point out that what is referred to as ‘first’ language is not always the dominant language of some bilingual children. In the same vein, use of the term ‘mother tongue’ is also avoided in this book because many bilingual mothers use two or even more languages with their children. Given the overall language use pattern among Turkish immigrant children (Extra & Yagmur, 2004), Turkish is usually acquired first and a second language (Dutch, French or German) is learned mostly in the school setting. Following this general pattern, first language refers to Turkish while second language refers to the mainstream language (either Dutch, French or German) in this chapter. As discussed in detail by Akoglu and Yagmur (2016), the interdependence between first and second language skills of immigrant children is under-researched. Researchers claim that there is a linguistic interdependency between first and second language skills, which is also supported

136

6 The Relationship Between First and Second Language Skills …

by the findings of other researchers (Bialystok, 2005; Scheele et al., 2010; Yagmur & Konak, 2009). Regarding bilingual competence, one of the most discussed theories related to the cognitive effects of bilingualism is the threshold hypothesis (Cummins, 1979). It is commonly accepted that cognitive development is essential for academic achievement. The relationship between language development and cognitive growth has certain implications for bilingual students’ school achievement. Cummins (1979, p.10) proposed that “there may be a threshold level of linguistic competence which a bilingual child must attain both in order to avoid cognitive deficits and allow the potentially beneficial aspects of becoming bilingual to influence his cognitive growth.” A threshold explains the difference between a balanced bilingual and a dominant bilingual. Each threshold is a level of language competence that has consequences for a bilingual child. In order to avoid the negative consequences of bilingualism, the child has to reach the first threshold in both languages. If the child reaches the second threshold, he or she will be able to obtain cognitive benefits from bilingualism. Concerning language competence, bilingual speakers might be equally dominant in both languages, or more dominant in one language only, and/or insufficiently competent, limited bilingual, in either of the languages (Baker, 2006). Discussions seem to concentrate on language ability of bilingual children; yet, there is a close relationship between the larger linguistic environment and language competence of immigrant children. It appears that a subtractive bilingual environment adversely affects immigrant children’s cognitive and scholastic progress. Policy makers and even some educational specialists claim that immigrant Turkish children perform poorly at school because they speak their heritage language at home, being unaware of the fact that the level of proficiency in the first language affects the level of proficiency in the second language. As there is a dependency between the languages in the mental lexicon, promoting the literacy skills of children in the first language and intensive Turkish instruction in the first three years is important for second language development (Yagmur & Konak, 2009). While acquiring literacy skills, the children also acquire new ways of thinking in a particular subject in different domains. After acquiring those thinking skills, they start to create their own specific worldviews. Besides all of these, children start to get an understanding of the genres, communication types, and specialized forms of discourse including traditions, conventions and expectations. In testing linguistic skills of immigrant children, only the mainstream language skills of children are measured in most European countries (Yagmur & Konak, 2009). By looking at the evaluations of the mainstream language performance, the children’s language skills are determined. Language development is very important for school subjects that require abstract thinking skills. Those immigrant children whose first language improvement stops before acquiring abstract thinking skills, turn out to have a lower level of educational capacity than their real achievement capacity. As documented by Cummins (1979), the developmental interdependence and the threshold hypothesis highlight the importance of the links between first and second language skills of bilingual children. Considerable delays in language development have serious cognitive consequences for bilinguals. The instruction of L1 in the initial

6.3 The Relationship Between Heritage Language …

137

grades of the school leads to the development of a cognitively and academically beneficial form of additive bilingualism. We can claim that sufficient linguistic input and appropriate pedagogical approaches have considerable impact on immigrant children’s school achievement. Cummins (2000) further states that within a bilingual program, instructional time can be focused on developing students’ literacy skills in their primary language without adverse effects on the development of their literacy skills in the mainstream language. Furthermore, the relationship between first and second language literacy skills can provide a conceptual foundation for long-term growth in target language literacy skills. This does not imply, however, that transfer of literacy and academic language knowledge will happen automatically: there is usually also a need for formal instruction in the target language to realize the benefits of cross-linguistic transfer. In line with Cummins’ (1979) hypothesis, Yagmur and Konak (2009) suggest that the interdependence hypothesis is one of the focal points for studying the cognitive benefits of bilingualism. For children’s academic achievement, adequate cognitive development is necessary. For bilingual children, every threshold level has different consequences. Cummins (1979) suggests that the threshold levels may show changes according to the cognitive stages of a bilingual person or the academic demands of a certain school and there is not an absolute definition of each threshold level. In order, not to experience negative results of bilingualism, a bilingual child is expected to reach at least the second threshold level. Once the children reach the second threshold level in both languages, they can attain the cognitive benefits of bilingualism. Not reaching the first threshold in either of the languages has serious detrimental effects on linguistic and cognitive skills of bilingual children. As reported by Yagmur and Konak (2009) this is the most common problem faced by bilingual Turkish immigrant children attending submersion schools. Related to the language competence, bilinguals may be dominant in both languages, or may be less competent in one of the languages. While acquiring a second language, children start losing proficiency/fluency in their first language, which is called subtractive bilingualism. Subtractive bilingual environments negatively affect children’s cognitive and academic development. Bialystok (2001) maintains that all else being equal, the uses for which a child must employ the second language will influence the way in which the second language affects cognitive development. This confirms the fact that bilinguals usually do not have equal fluency in both of the languages. The proficiency that the child develops in each language is a specific response to a set of needs and circumstances. Some of these specific functions become integrated as inseparable parts of language proficiency. Furthermore, Verhoeven (2007) states that many minority children are fully exposed to the mainstream language to have a high level of competence in it and little importance is given to their first language. As it is mentioned in various studies (Limbird et al., 2013; Kroll et al., 2015; Lowry, 2011; Verhoeven, 2007), monolinguals and bilinguals pass through similar developmental processes. The major difference is that monolinguals are exposed to single language input and bilinguals are exposed to two different language inputs. Although children pass through the same developmental stages as monolinguals, depending on the acquisition order,

138

6 The Relationship Between First and Second Language Skills …

they can take their first language as reference point and be dependent on their first language. As the bilinguals are aware that they know two languages, they can switch between the languages. In subtractive bilingual environments, acquisition of a second language might entail the loss of the first language. To what extent the children are exposed to the second language influences the level of language attrition in the heritage language and the level of interaction between first and second languages. Kroll et al. (2015) point out that if there is a lack of exposure to the first language for an extended period of time, language attrition occurs. This attrition typically occurs in bilinguals who have little contact with heritage language speakers or in bilinguals who have a negative attitude towards their heritage language. There is a remarkable level of coordination between the two languages of the bilinguals with evidence showing that both languages work in a single unified system with different levels of use. The interaction of the two languages makes cognitive systems and neural mechanisms more activated and this interaction puts demand on the languages. These interactions can result in either language functioning fluently or code switching between the languages. Vocabulary acquisition is of utmost importance for the development of literacy skills and reading comprehension. In a study conducted by Verhoeven (2000), the minority children kept up with the native Dutch-speaking children on word blending and word decoding tasks. On word spelling and reading comprehension, however, the minority children found to be less efficient than their monolingual Dutch peers were. The structural models for word decoding and word spelling were highly comparable for the two groups. For reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge was found to have more of an impact on the L2 learners than on the L1 learners. Differences in reading comprehension between monolingual and bilingual students are commonly reported in the literature (Arikan et al., 2017). Limbird et al. (2013) state that bilingual children develop their reading comprehension skills differently than their monolingual peers. Although similar basic components play a role in learning to read for both bilingual and monolingual children, the components manifest themselves differently for the two groups (Schwartz, 2014). In a study conducted by Duursma et al. (2007) it is also mentioned that reading achievement is closely related to vocabulary knowledge. Successful reading comprehension depends on the amount of known vocabulary in the text, grasp of the overall meaning, past knowledge, and lexical density of the passage. Although research on the connection between vocabulary and reading comprehension among second language (L2) readers has been limited, there is no indication that the frequently replicated links between vocabulary and reading achievement among first language (L1) speakers are not also relevant to L2 reading. In understanding the reading development of bilingual children, then, a key question is what predicts vocabulary, both in L1 and in L2. Regarding language use of bilingual Turkish children, Leseman (2000) maintains that language and cognitive development are closely related.

6.4 Research Focus

139

6.4 Research Focus The focus of this empirical analysis is on the relationship between first and second language reading skills of Turkish bilinguals growing up in France, Germany and the Netherlands. Reading comprehension skills are measured in both the heritage language (Turkish) and in the language of the host country (Dutch, French and German respectively) by utilizing the standardized tests (PISA and PIRLS). Possible relationships between language skills and acculturation orientations are investigated. The following research questions are formulated: 1. 2. 3.

Is there a link between first and second language reading proficiencies of bilingual Turkish immigrant students? Do the proficiency levels achieved in the first language predict second language skills (Dutch, French and German)? What is the relationship between acculturation orientations and language proficiency (both L1 and L2) of bilingual Turkish immigrant students?

Language performance is defined by scores on standardized reading comprehension tests (PIRLS for 10-year-olds and PISA for 15-year-olds) in Turkish and the in the language of the host country. The questions for PISA are selected from 2009 PISA reading test and the texts and questions for PIRLS were selected from 2011 application (for full details see Demirel, 2019). The tests were available in Dutch, German, French and Turkish for PISA. In order to measure acculturation orientations of students’ acculturation survey was used from an earlier project (Yagmur & van de Vijver, 2012). Different language versions of the survey questionnaire were available in Dutch, French, German and Turkish (For details see Yagmur, 2016).

6.4.1 Participants The details about participants for each participating country are presented below. As it is shown in Table 6.1, female students outnumber male students. Mean age of PIRLS students is 10.19 and PISA students is 14.68. As seen in Table 6.2, the number of female students is more than the number of male students in both groups. Mean age for PIRLS participants is 10.31 and for PISA participants mean age is 14.78. Table 6.1 Gender and age distribution of students in PISA and PIRLS testing in France Gender

PIRLS students

PISA students

N

Mean age

N

Mean age

Female

63

10.13

88

14.67

Male

56

10.27

34

14.71

Total

119

10.13

122

14.67

140

6 The Relationship Between First and Second Language Skills …

Table 6.2 Gender and age distribution of students in PISA and PIRLS testing in Germany Gender

PIRLS students

PISA students

N

Mean age

N

Mean age

Female

68

10.21

74

14.93

Male

45

10.47

60

14.60

Total

113

10.31

134

14.78

Table 6.3 Gender and age distribution of students in PISA and PIRLS testing in the Netherlands Gender

PIRLS students

PISA students

N

Mean age

N

Mean age

Female

67

10.87

62

15.14

Male

49

10.89

60

15.11

Total

116

10.88

122

15.13

As seen in Table 6.3, in the PIRLS group of students, the average age is 10.8 years. From the 116 participants in the PIRLS group, 110 were born in the Netherlands, and six of them were born in Turkey. Most of the parents of PIRLS group were born in Turkey (78%). In the PISA group, the mean age is 15.1 year-old. From the 122 participants in the PISA group, 116 students were born in the Netherlands, 3 in Turkey and 3 in another European country. In the PISA group, around 84% of the parents were born in Turkey. The majority of students in both PIRLS and PISA study were second-generation Turkish immigrant children. As a reference point, Turkish monolinguals from Turkey are included in the study. For PISA test, 140 students (63 females with a mean age of 14.83 and 77 males with a mean age of 15.10) participated and for PIRLS test 120 students (56 females with a mean age of 9.20 and 64 males with a mean age of 9.23) participated. In total 260 students participated in the current research as monolingual Turkish participants. In the European context, the total number of informants was 348 for PIRLS and 378 for PISA testing. Overall, 986 student took part in this study.

6.5 Results We first describe the psychometric properties of the 16 scales (12 acculturation and 4 language scales, 2 PIRLS reading scales [Turkish and host language in each country], and 2 PISA scales [Turkish and host language in each country]). This is followed by a presentation of exploratory factor analyses of the background variables (acculturation- and language-related scales). This analysis was conducted to prepare the data for path analysis; the factor analysis aimed to reduce the dimensionality of the acculturation and language variables. We then report the comparison of the Turkish

6.5 Results

141

and mainstream scores of the students on both PIRLS and PISA and a comparison of the achievement scores with mainstream language and Turkish tests. Finally, we describe a test of the associations between the acculturation and language factors as antecedents and achievement in two path analyses (one for PIRLS and one for PISA data).

6.5.1 Psychometric Properties and Exploratory Factor Analyses The internal consistencies of the background scales, dealing with acculturation, identity, and language usage and preferences are presented in Table 6.4. As can be seen there, the scales yielded adequate to excellent internal consistencies in all countries, ranging from 0.62 to 0.87. These values were considered to be sufficient for further analyses. The same was true for the cognitive test scores. Both PIRLS and PISA reliabilities were good, with most values in the 0.70 and 0.80 s. In the next step, we reduced the dimensionality of the background scales (acculturation, identity and language) to prepare these for path analysis. In the path analysis, we wanted to relate background scales to reading scores. However, the number of background scales was rather large relative to our sample sizes and we expected some clustering of the background scales. We clustered the scales in three exploratory factor analyses. The first involved the two Turkish orientation and identity scales. Table 6.4 Psychometric properties of the scales in each country context Acculturation and language

Cronbach’s alpha Dutch

French

German

Feeling member of Turkish culture

0.81

0.78

0.79

Feeling member of dominant culture

0.81

0.75

0.78

Mainstream orientation

0.62

0.76

0.76

Ethnic orientation

0.65

0.65

0.76

Language use

0.75

0.69

0.75

Language choice

0.83

0.85

0.87

Language attitudes

0.70

0.82 French

0.78

Achievement scores

Dutch

German

Turkish

L1

L2

L1

L2

L1

L2

L1

PIRLS reading (1-point items)

0.78

0.74

0.83

0.76

0.78

0.74

0.71

PIRLS reading (2-point items)

0.75

0.79

0.75

0.79

0.75

0.79

0.61

PIRLS reading combined

0.85

0.83

0.88

0.85

0.85

0.83

0.78

PISA reading

0.73

0.77

0.78

0.75

0.73

0.77

0.61

Note L1 is always Turkish but L2 is either Dutch, French or German for the given context

142

6 The Relationship Between First and Second Language Skills …

Table 6.5 Exploratory factor analyses per country of (a) ethnic orientation; (b) dominant group orientation; (c) language variables Scale Ethnic group orientation

Dutch

French

German

55%

62%

56%

Feeling member of Turkish culture

0.75

0.79

0.75

Ethnic orientation

0.75

0.79

0.75

Dominant group orientation

72%

72%

66%

Feeling member of dominant culture

0.85

0.85

0.81

Mainstream orientation

0.85

0.85

0.81

Language

62%

60%

58%

Language use

0.84

0.78

0.84

Language choice

0.85

0.84

0.83

Language attitudes

0.67

0.69

0.60

Note Percentages (in italics) refer to the percentage of variable accounted for by the first factor while loadings refer to the loadings of the scales on the first factor

The results are presented in Table 6.5. In each country, we found a first factor that explained between 55 and 62% of the variance. The analysis confirmed the strong link between Turkish orientation and Turkish identity. The second analysis addressed the orientation toward the majority group and identity factors. The two scales yielded a strong first factor in each country (explained variance ranged from 66 to 72%). The third analysis involved the language variables. The first factor explained between 58 and 62%, confirming the unidimensional nature of the language variables. Although not further documented here, we found strong evidence for the similarity of all factors across the three countries. The factorial agreement indices were well above 0.95, which is taken as evidence of factorial similarity (van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).

6.5.2 Comparison of the Turkish and Mainstream Language Mainstream Language Scores on PIRLS and PISA We tested cross-national and cross-sectional differences of scores on language version separately for PIRLS and PISA. The first analysis addressed differences in PIRLS reading scores. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was conducted, with language version (Turkish vs. French/German/Dutch) as within-subject factor and gender and country (3 levels: France, Germany, and the Netherlands) as betweensubject factors. The descriptives of the test scores are given in Table 6.6 and the analysis of variance results in Table 6.4. All main effects of the PIRLS analysis were significant. Language version showed a highly significant difference with a large effect size (η2 = 0.1 2; all η2 reported are partial values); the majority group languages showed the largest means: M Mainstream language version = 0.51 versus M Turkish = 0.44.

6.5 Results

143

Table 6.6 Means and standard deviations of PIRLS and PISA scores per country and gender Country France

Germany

The Netherlands

Turkey

Language version

PIRLS

PISA

Females

Males

Overall

Females

Males

Overall

French version

M

0.43

0.35

0.40

0.52

0.55

0.53

SD

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.19

0.24

0.21

Turkish version

M

0.39

0.36

0.37

0.50

0.46

0.49

SD

0.20

0.18

0.20

0.17

0.24

0.19

German version

M

0.52

0.46

0.50

0.47

0.41

0.45

SD

0.19

0.21

0.20

0.16

0.21

0.19

Turkish version

M

0.49

0.37

0.44

0.46

0.41

0.44

SD

0.19

0.17

0.19

0.21

0.20

0.20

Dutch version

M

0.66

0.59

0.63

0.62

0.56

0.59

SD

0.19

0.16

0.18

0.15

0.15

0.15

Turkish version

M

0.54

0.49

0.52

0.59

0.47

0.53

SD

0.21

0.16

0.19

0.14

0.18

0.17

Turkish version

M

0.67

0.66

0.66

0.83

0.71

0.76

SD

0.17

0.15

0.16

0.07

0.15

0.13

Note Mean scores represent the proportion of correct responses

Country also showed a very large and significant effect size of η2 = 0.16; M France = 0.38, M Germany = 0.47, M the Netherlands = 0.57 (note that these means are an average of the two language versions in each country). Gender also showed a significant, yet small effect (η2 = 0.04); the female mean of 0.51 was larger than the male mean of 0.43. Of all the interactions computed, only the language version by country interaction reached significance, with a small effect size of 0.04. The language version differences were rather small in France (0.02), a bit larger in Germany (0.06), and largest in the Netherlands (0.11). The PISA scores were then analyzed using the same design (see Table 6.7 for the effects). The main effects followed the same pattern as found for PIRLS but the effect sizes were approximately only half of the PIRLS effects. Language version showed a significant effect with a medium effect size of 0.06. Again, we found superior scores for the majority group version (M Mainstream language version = 0.52 versus M Turkish = 0.48). Country differences were also significant, with a medium effect size of 0.08, M France = 0.51, M Germany = 0.44, M the Netherlands = 0.56. Gender differences were again significant, with a small effect size of 0.02, M females = 0.52, M Males = 0.47. Two of the interactions were significant (with a small effect size). The first was the language version by country interaction, the score differences on the two language versions were small in Germany (0.01), larger in France (0.04) and again largest in the Netherlands (0.06). The second significant interaction was between language and gender. The gender difference was smallest in German (0.01), larger in France (0.05) and largest in the Netherlands (0.09).

144

6 The Relationship Between First and Second Language Skills …

Table 6.7 ANOVA of language versions as within factor and country and gender as between factors: PIRLS and PISA Independent variable

PIRLS

PISA

F (df 1, df 2)

η2

F (df 1, df 2)

η2

Language version (L)

45.21 (1, 338)

0.12***

25.18 (1, 372)

0.06***

Country (C)

32.05 (2, 338)

0.16***

15.93 (2, 372)

0.08***

Gender (G)

13.16 (1, 338)

0.04***

7.06 (1, 372)

0.02**

L×C

7.47 (2, 338)

0.04**

5.22 (2, 372)

0.03**

L×G

0.07 (1, 338)

0.00

5.31 (1, 372)

0.01*

C×G

0.25 (2, 338)

0.00

1.64 (2, 372)

0.01

L×C×G

2.73 (2, 338)

0.02

2.47 (2, 372)

0.01

*p

< 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

It can be concluded that PIRLS and PISA results showed the same global patterning of language version, country, and gender differences. The mainstream language performance was invariably better than the Turkish performance and females outperformed males. The rank order of the Turkish-French and TurkishGerman scores was not the same for PIRLS and PISA, but the Turkish-Dutch scores were highest for both tests. Females obtained higher scores on both reading tests. Moreover, gender differences in scores were smaller in France and Germany than in the Netherlands. The next analysis addressed differences in scores on the Turkish versions of PIRLS and PISA across four countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey. Two two-way between-subject analyses of variance were conducted, one for PIRLS and one for PISA, with country and gender as the independent variables. The results of the analyses are reported in Table 6.8 and the post hoc tests are reported in Table 6.9. The PIRLS analysis showed a large country effect of 0.26. The upper part of Table 6.9 shows the background: The scores of students in Turkey was much higher than the scores in any of the other countries; the average difference in proportion of correct scores is 0.22 higher in Turkey than in the other countries combined. Moreover, post hoc tests revealed that all country means were significantly different. The lowest scores were found in France, followed by Germany, followed by the Netherlands Table 6.8 ANOVA of Turkish-language reading PIRLS and PISA scores with country and gender as between factors Independent variable Country

PIRLS

PISA

F (df 1, df 2)

η2

F (df 1, df 2)

η2

69.24 (3, 589)

0.26***

90.08 (3, 510)

0.35***

Gender

13.05 (1, 589)

0.02***

12.45 (1, 510)

0.02***

Interaction

1.50 (3, 589)

0.01

3.78 (3, 510)

0.01*

*p

< 0.05;

*** p

< 0.001

6.5 Results

145

Table 6.9 Post hoc comparisons (least significant difference) of country differences in PIRLS and PISA Turkish reading achievement scores Country

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(a) PIRLS (1) France

–

−0.07a

−0.14

−0.29

(2) Germany

0.07

–

−0.07

−0.22

(3) The Netherlands

0.14

0.07

–

−0.15

(4) Turkey

0.29

0.22

0.15

–

(b) PISA (1) France

–

0.05

−0.04ns

−0.27

(2) Germany

−0.05

–

−0.09

−0.32

(3) The Netherlands

0.04ns

0.09

–

−0.24

(4) Turkey

0.27

0.32

0.24

–

of −0.07 means that the score of France is 0.10 below the score of Germany. Note All cells are significantly different from zero (p < 0.05), with the exception of the French—Dutch comparison of PISA scores a Score

(with the highest scores in Turkey). The significant gender differences replicated the previous analysis and showed higher female scores. The country differences of the PISA scores were also highly significant, with an effect size of 0.35. The lowest scores were found in Germany, followed by France (so, the opposite order of PIRLS scores), followed by the Netherlands, while the highest scores were again found in Turkey. With the exception of the French—Dutch comparison, all post hoc tests showed significant differences. Gender differences for PISA scores were small and consistent with PIRLS results, showing higher scores of females. We also found a significant gender by country interaction (η2 = 0.01). Gender differences in Turkey (0.12) were largest, followed by the Netherlands and Germany (both 0.06), and smallest in France (0.02). In summary, the most salient finding of the comparison of the PIRLS and PISA Turkish test versions was the much higher performance of students in Turkey compared to any of the Turkish bilinguals in Western-European countries. Of the three European countries, Turkish-Dutch students scored the highest. Gender differences were small, yet consistently pointing to a superior female performance.

6.5.3 Path Analysis Linking Acculturation and Language to Educational Achievement These analyses involved the immigrants only. We were interested in testing the associations of the background variables (Turkish orientation, mainstream orientation, and language) with reading test performance. The associations of all variables were tested in a path analysis in which the background variables predict both reading tests

146

6 The Relationship Between First and Second Language Skills …

Table 6.10 Fit statistics of invariance of path model parameters for PIRLS and PISA Model

χ2 (df )

χ2 (df )

CFI

CFI

RMSEA

(a) PIRLS Configural invariance

8.93 (3)

Structural weights

19.77 (15)

11.34 (12)

0.981

0.978 −0.003

0.030

0.072

Structural covariances

51.80** (27)

32.02** (12)

0.900

0.081

0.051

Structural residuals

57.39** (31)

5.59 (4)

0.894

0.006

0.049

(b) PISA Configural invariance

3.20 (3)

0.999

0.013

Structural weights

26.69* (15)

23.48* (12)

0.965

0.034

0.046

Structural covariances

47.28** (27)

20.59 (12)

0.940

0.025

0.045

Structural residuals

52.62** (31)

5.34 (4)

0.936

0.004

0.043

Most restrictive model with a good fit in italics. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

and in which Turkish reading predicts reading in the country’s mainstream language. The latter choice requires an explanation. Turkish can be assumed to be the first language for the vast majority of Turkish students in the Western European countries. We reasoned that the students would use their Turkish skills when acquiring the mainstream languages of their countries of residence. Therefore, we assumed that Turkish knowledge would predict performance in the country’s mainstream language. We found in preliminary analyses that Turkish group orientation was independent of achievement in the country’s mainstream language in each country. Therefore, this link was omitted from the model we tested. Separate analyses were conducted for PIRLS and PISA scores. The invariance of the path model across the three countries was first established. As can be confirmed in the upper part of Table 6.10, the most restrictive model with a good fit was the structural weights model, χ2 (15) = 19.77, ns, χ2 (12) = 11.34, ns, CFI = 0.981, CFI = −0.003, RMSEA = 0.030 (RMSEA is the root mean square error of approximation). This finding suggests that the links between background variables and performance are the same across the three countries. The standardized path coefficients are presented in the upper panel of Fig. 6.1. Not surprisingly, the strongest path went from Turkish PIRLS achievement to the country’s mainstream language achievement (0.62, p < 0.001). Two additional paths were significant; the first went from Turkish language to the country’s mainstream language achievement (−0.20, p < 0.001) and from dominant group orientation to the country’s mainstream language achievement (−0.12, p < 0.01). Turkish group orientation was not predictive of Turkish PIRLS achievement. All in all, the links between the background variables and reading performance were not strong. Turkish PIRLS performance was not predicted by any background factor. Although the correlations of the three background factors differ across countries (the structural covariance model had to be rejected), the global patterning of the correlations was rather similar across the countries. Turkish group orientation and Turkish language usage tended to be

6.5 Results

147

Fig. 6.1 Path analysis linking acculturation and language orientations to educational achievement: a PIRLS, b PISA (all parameters are standardized). Note The PIRLS solution is based on a structural weights model, whereas the PISA solution is based on a configural invariance model. Boxes with three parameters refer to the French, German, and Dutch sample, respectively. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001

positively and significantly associated whereas their correlation with the orientation toward the dominant group tended to be significant and negative. This correlational patterning points to a limited compatibility of the ethnic and mainstream orientations and identity. A similar path model was tested for the PISA data. The invariance test showed that the configural invariance model was the most restrictive model with a good fit, χ2 (3) = 3.20, ns, CFI = 0.999, RMSEA = 0.013. The parameter estimates are presented in the lower panel of Fig. 6.1. The link between the two reading achievement scores was again the strongest (standardized loadings between 0.52 and 0.74, all p < 0.001). Some of the other paths were significant, yet the paths that were significant in the previous analysis (the paths from Turkish language and dominant group orientation to mainstream language performance) were not significant for PISA scores. The

148

6 The Relationship Between First and Second Language Skills …

significant paths in the present analyses were from Turkish group orientation to Turkish PISA achievement in the Netherlands (remarkably, a negative association of −0.19 was found, p < 0.05), from Turkish language to Turkish PISA achievement in the Netherlands (0.30, p < 0.05) and from dominant group orientation to Turkish PISA achievement in the French group (−0.24, p < 0.01). The background scales showed the same patterning as found in the previous path analysis: despite country differences in the size of the correlations, Turkish language and cultural orientation was positively related and these two were negatively related to the dominant group orientation. The path analyses of the PIRLS and PISA scores showed differences in invariance levels and significance of background factors and reading achievement. Yet, at a more global level, the analyses showed the same patterning of results. Firstly, Turkish reading performance is highly predictive of performance in the mainstream language of the country. Although the association is probably influenced by various variables unaccounted for in the present study, such as student intelligence and socioeconomic status, our data are not supportive of a model in which L1 and L2 skills are negatively related. Secondly, the correlations background scales seem to suggest that Turkish orientation and dominant culture orientation are negatively associated and that a full integration of the two cultures is not seen as a viable option. Thirdly, the associations of the background factors and reading performance are weak and not surprisingly, they tend to vary from one instrument to the other. These weak links were somewhat unexpected. One of the reasons for the weak associations could be the difference in registers used in everyday life and in school tasks. The PIRLS and PISA reading tasks use a school register, with complex vocabulary and grammar that may not be found in everyday language. The cultural orientation of an immigrant may refer more to how he or she deals with the cultures in everyday life, which probably mainly refers to everyday language.

6.6 Discussion and Conclusion Based on the findings presented in this chapter, it is a crystal-clear outcome that Turkish is not the ‘first language’ of Turkish bilinguals growing up in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. In all the national contexts, Turkish bilingual children have much higher reading (and writing) proficiency levels in the host national languages. Turkish bilinguals in France has the lowest scores in Turkish tests compared to Germany and the Netherlands. Both the 10 years-olds and 15 yearsolds have higher reading comprehension skills in French, German and Dutch respectively. As opposed to media discourse and political discourse, Turkish as a heritage language is not blocking the acquisition of French, German or Dutch. On the contrary, students from Turkish immigration heritage have much lower skills in their heritage language. However, as firmly established in this study, the level of linguistic competence reached in the heritage language predicts the competence reached in the second language. Turkish bilinguals, who have high scores in Turkish reading test, obtained

6.6 Discussion and Conclusion

149

equally high scores in the host language (in French, German, and Dutch respectively). However, the level reached in the second language did not predict the level reached in the first language. More research is needed to uncover this relationship. The first research question of the empirical investigation was about a possible link between first and second language reading proficiencies of Turkish immigrant students. Results obtained from the comparative analysis of the countries confirmed our hypothesis. There was a close relationship between first and second language skills of Turkish bilinguals. In parallel with the first research question, the second research question “Do the proficiency levels achieved in the first language predict second language skills?” is also confirmed by the obtained results. The relationship between the reading proficiency levels in Turkish and host country languages (Dutch, German, and French) were examined and compared in the two age groups. In line with our hypothesis, the obtained evidence revealed that there is a high level of interdependency between the first language and second language reading proficiency of Turkish bilinguals. In this comparative analysis, the strongest path went from first language achievement level to second language achievement, which confirmed our initial assumption. The current study is significant for investigating this hypothesis not only for different age groups but also in different national contexts. As for the response to the third research question “What is the relationship between acculturation orientations and language proficiency (both L1 and L2) of Turkish immigrant students?” a weak link between background variables and language achievement in all the countries was found. There are several possible reasons for this unexpected finding. The relationship between acculturation orientations and reading performance being weak in all three countries is significant because these countries have different integration and inclusion ideologies concerning immigrants. While the Netherlands emphasize social inclusion and integration, French policies demand linguistic assimilation. These different ideologies impact acculturation orientations and language use differently. Therefore, the finding that there is only a weak relationship between acculturation orientations and reading performance in all countries suggests that there could be external factors influencing their reading performance. As Bourhis et al. (1997) indicate, integration policies play a critical role for the acculturation of immigrants. The adaptation is not only the responsibility of immigrant residents but also the responsibility of the receiving society as well. There were differences in the reading performances of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands, Germany, and France. Acculturation orientations were expected to be a possible reason for the difference between countries seeing that the countries differ significantly in their acculturation strategies as previously mentioned. However, achievement in the mainstream language was found to be independent of acculturation orientations. The reading skills in the mainstream language of the Turkish immigrant participants was best in the Netherlands in both age groups. This suggests that higher achievement in the Netherlands can be associated with the schooling system, educational policy of the country and the comparatively more inclusive government policy for immigrants in general. This result suggests that if the required social and educational support is given for the improvement of students’ heritage language, those students could better integrate into the school system and

150

6 The Relationship Between First and Second Language Skills …

get better educational outcomes. In this way, the discrepancy between the minority students and native students would decrease in time. The fact that this discrepancy between the minority immigrant students and native students has existed for several generations suggests that their educational failure cannot solely be attributed to their lack of language proficiency, there may be some other factors affecting their school achievement (Riphahn, 2003). When the reasons for low school achievements of immigrants are investigated in countries such as Germany, it has been suggested that school tracking systems challenge immigrant students. Germany has an early tracking system (Söhn & Özcan, 2006) which means that at the age of 10 or 11, the students are assigned to different schooling trajectories. The schools that they are assigned to at such an early age are highly predictive of the future academic prospects and accordingly job prospects. In the case of Germany, because of early selection, the students find themselves in lower track streams, which discourages them and their families to try harder for higher track education and for higher degrees for a good position in society (Kristen & Granato, 2007). The older selection age in other countries makes it possible for Turkish children to have access to more prestigious streams. Other findings included a strong link between Turkish orientation and Turkish identity, a positive correlation between Turkish language use and Turkish orientation, and a negative correlation between Turkish language use and mainstream group orientation. These findings were in line with Yagmur and van de Vijver’s (2012) findings. As reported in Chap. 3, we found that Turkish identity was a positive predictor for Turkish language use and preference, whereas mainstream group identity was a negative predictor for Turkish language use and preference. Turkish literacy abilities of Turkish immigrant participants were found to be weak. Turkish bilinguals’ reading skills were significantly higher in the mainstream language than they were in Turkish. The difference between the Turkish bilingual participants’ reading skills in the mainstream language and Turkish was smallest in Germany, then France and it was the largest in the Netherlands. Moreover, when the reading performance of Turkish immigrant participants were compared to those of Turkish monolingual participants, the differences between the two groups were clear. The bilingual immigrant participants’ reading skills were significantly lower than those of Turkish monolingual participants. Among the Turkish immigrant populations, Turkish-Dutch participants had the highest reading skills. In the Netherlands, there are no Turkish language classes offered at primary schools. While Turkish immigrant students do have the opportunity to attend Turkish classes after school hours in Germany and France, their attendance in these classes are not regular, possibly due to the low standing of Turkish or misconceptions about being a Turkish bilingual. The Turkish courses in German and French schools did not have a positive influence on Turkish immigrant students’ reading scores as the Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands, who do not have any formal Turkish classes in schools, were found to have better reading scores. In conclusion, the results of the current study provide evidence against the argument that teaching immigrant students their first language in schools will hinder their mainstream language development. The results of this study suggest that the opposite

6.6 Discussion and Conclusion

151

of this argument is true. The findings demonstrate that improving the first language of Turkish immigrant students would indirectly improve their mainstream language. Moreover, the current study illustrated that the Turkish immigrants’ performances on these tests were significantly different in the three European countries investigated. The reasons behind these differences can be various, such as the acculturation strategy or the structure of the education system. The countries follow different policies, which leads to different achievement levels among students from different backgrounds. Overall, the results of the current study suggest that setting up consistent support for Turkish immigrant students’ development of Turkish would lead these students to catch up with their native peers at school as well as to have better mainstream language skills. However, the current study did not find support for the positive influence of the current Turkish language programs offered in Germany and France. Possible problems of the currently offered Turkish programs are as follows; targeted learning outcomes are not appropriate for Turkish origin students, Turkish materials are not appropriate, the hours of lessons are not enough, students and parents are not aware of the importance of the heritage language, and the Turkish teachers lack knowledge about bilingualism and lack proficiency in the mainstream language of the country they work. The current study underlines the importance of such programs by illustrating that improving immigrant students’ Turkish will benefit their mainstream language skills.

References Akoglu, G., & Yagmur, K. (2016). First-language skills of bilingual Turkish immigrant children growing up in a Dutch submersion context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(6), 706–721. Ammermüller, A. (2005). Poor background or low returns? Why immigrant students in Germany perform so poorly in PISA. Discussion Paper No. 05–18. Retrieved from http://opus.zbw-kiel.de/ volltexte/2005/2908/pdf/dp0518.pdf Arikan, S., van de Vijver, F., & Yagmur, K. (2017). PISA mathematics and reading performance differences of mainstream European and Turkish immigrant students. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-017-9260-6 Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Multilingual Matters Ltd. Baysu, G., & Valk, H. (2012). Navigating the school system in Sweden, Belgium, Austria and Germany: School segregation and second generation school trajectories. Ethnicities, 12(6), 776– 799. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, E. (2005). Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 417–432). Oxford University Press. Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386.

152

6 The Relationship Between First and Second Language Skills …

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–255. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. Demirel, G. (2019). Reading proficiency and acculturation orientations of Turkish bilingual students in the Netherlands, Germany and France. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University, the Netherlands. Duursma, E., Romero-Contreras, S., Szuber, A., Proctor, P., Snow, C., & August, D. (2007). The role of home literacy and language environment on bilinguals’ English and Spanish vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 171–190. Extra, G., & Yagmur, K. (Eds.). (2004). Urban multilingualism in Europe: Immigrant minority languages at home and at school. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hochschild, J. L., & Cropper, P. (2010). Immigration regimes and schooling regimes: Which countries promote successful immigrant incorporation? Theory and Research in Education, 8(1), 21–61. Huddleston, T., Bilgili, Ö., Joki, A. L., & Vankova, Z. (2015). Migrant integration policy index 2015. CIDOB and MPG. Kristen, C., & Granato, N. (2007). The educational attainment of the second generation in Germany social origins and ethnic inequality. Ethnicities, 7(3), 343–366. Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bice, K., & Perrotti, L. (2015). Bilingualism, mind and brain. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 1, 377–394. Leseman, P. (2000). Bilingual vocabulary development of Turkish preschoolers in the Netherlands. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21, 93–112. Limbird, C. K., Maluch, J. T., Rjosk, C., Stanat, P., & Merkens, H. (2013). Differential growth patterns in emerging reading skills of Turkish-German bilingual and German monolingual primary school students. Reading and Writing, 27(5), 945–968. Lowry, L. (2011). Bilingualism in young children: Separating fact from fiction. Last cited, 02 Feb 2016: http://hanen.org/Helpful-Info/Articles/Bilingualism-in-Young-Children-Separating-Factfr.aspx McNamara, T. (2011). Multilingualism in education: A poststructuralist critique. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 339–478. Riphahn, R. (2003). Cohort effects in the educational attainment of second generation immigrants in Germany: An analysis of census data. Journal of Population Economics, 16(4), 711–737. Scheele, A. F., Leseman, P. M., & Mayo, A. Y. (2010). The home language environment of monolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 117–140. Schwartz, M. (2014). The impact of the first language first model on vocabulary development among preschool bilingual children. Reading & Writing, 27, 709–732. Söhn, J., & Özcan, V. (2006). The educational attainment of Turkish migrants in Germany. Turkish Studies, 7(1), 101–124. Verhoeven, L. (2007). Early bilingualism, language transfer, and phonological awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 425–439. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Cross-cultural psychology series, vol. 1. Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Sage Publications, Inc. Yagmur, K., & Konak, Ö. A. (2009). Assessment of language proficiency in bilingual children: How valid is the interdependence hypothesis? Turkic Languages, 13, 274–284. Yagmur, K., & van de Vijver, F. (2012). Acculturation and language orientations of Turkish immigrants in Australia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(7), 1110–1130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111420145 Yagmur, K. (2016). Intergenerational language use and acculturation of Turkish speakers in four immigration contexts. Peter Lang.

Chapter 7

Discussion and Conclusions

7.1 Comparative Evidence From a multi-disciplinary perspective, we presented our research findings based on multiple research projects in this Volume. Turkish immigrants constitute the largest non-European ethnic group in major European countries as Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, and France. There are conflicting demographic figures on the population of Turkish immigrants presented in different documents. The estimations vary from 5 to 8 million people from a Turkish heritage in the European context. However, there are many inconsistencies. For instance according to Hoffman, Makovsky, and Werz (2020), the population of people from a Turkish speaking heritage is above 5 million in Europe(). As reported by Hoffman et al., (2020, p. 1) “the establishment of permanent Turkish diaspora communities in Europe have long been politically sensitive.” This sensitivity is openly used and abused in the political discourse of conservative and far right political parties in many European countries. Hoffman et al. (2020) recent study is highly complementary to our research findings. The fact that they use “diaspora” to characterize Turkish-German or TurkishDutch people shows their political choice. In our understanding, especially the first author’s, referring to Dutch or German-born individuals as ‘immigrant, foreigner, or members of Turkish diaspora’ characterizes a language of exclusion instead of inclusion. Using inclusive language is the most fundamental condition in the integration of immigrant communities. Policy makers and politicians cannot expect full integration of people from an immigration heritage by using socially exclusive and discriminatory language. As opposed to right-wing political discourse, as shown by Hoffman et al. (2020) the great majority of Turkish immigrants have integration orientation: “The Turkish and Turkish-Kurdish diaspora feels at home in Europe overall, its members expressing high levels of satisfaction with their living circumstances and general contentment with host nations’ integration policies” (2020, p. 1). Contrary to political discourse, according to Hoffman et al. (2020), the majority of host society members are happy with their Turkish (and Kurdish) neighbours. Turkish speaking immigrants living in Germany, France, Austria, and the Netherlands are pleased with © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 K. Yagmur and F. J. R. van de Vijver, Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Acculturation in Turkish Immigrants, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94796-5_7

153

154

7 Discussion and Conclusions

the educational and economic opportunities the host nations offer. Some complain about discrimination in the society but the majority is satisfied about their life circumstances, especially with the democratic traditions in European countries. Similar to our findings discussed in Chap. 3, the great majority of immigrants from a Turkish speaking heritage continue to identify themselves first and foremost as Turks rather than as full members of the societies they inhabit (Hoffman et al., 2020). As documented in Chap. 3 (this Volume), the sense of belonging to the host society is highest in the American and the Australian contexts. According to Rudmin et al. (2017) acculturation research is ideologically motivated and it has colonialist and Eurocentric origins. Rudmin et al. (2017) question the semantic load of acculturation concept by claiming that acculturation is most basically about establishing hegemony of dominant groups on the minority groups. In this way, acculturation is about the imposition of dominant (group’s) culture on the newcomers or minor groups. They claim that acculturation research often attributes negative health status to minority cultures or to their acculturation attitudes, without consideration of low SES. They make a number of highly nuanced criticisms of the term ‘acculturation’ but the most marked remark concerns the conceptualization of acculturation. Rudmin et al. (2017) claim that the stigmatizing conceptualization of acculturation can be seen in the use of “dominant” and “superior” as opposed to ‘minor’ and ‘inferior.’ This topic is certainly worthy of further discussion; however, our concern is more about the semantic load of these terms in acculturation research. Rudmin et al. (2017) accurately point out the possible disadvantages of labelling people as members of “superior group”, “dominant group”, “majority group,” “destination culture,” and “minority group or minority culture” and so forth. The danger lies in the legitimization of discriminatory language leading to hardened interethnic group boundaries. In future research, semantic associations of terms used in acculturation research can be finely scrutinized for at least political correctness.

7.2 Evaluation of Acculturation Findings We set out to investigate Turkish immigrant acculturation and language orientations in five different countries (Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States of America) to shed light on the relations between identity and language, and on the interactions between receiving society orientations and immigrant responses. To start with the former, combining social-psychological and sociolinguistic perspectives provided new insight into the role of language in the acculturation process. In line with our conceptual framework and hypotheses, there was a strong relationship between ethnic identification and the value of both ethnic and mainstream languages. We distinguished between a symbolic language value factor and a behavioural language preference factor. We found that immigrants with a stronger Turkish identity valued and used the Turkish language more. The stronger the identification with the ethnic group, the higher the value of ethnic language. Education turns out to be an important predictor in valuing the mainstream language; more

7.2 Evaluation of Acculturation Findings

155

educated informants are more inclined to value the mainstream language compared to less educated informants in all national contexts. Mainstream identity works in the opposite direction; immigrants with a stronger mainstream orientation use and value the Turkish language less. Given the differences in ideological orientations and the acculturation climates of the receiving countries, it was expected that Turkish immigrants would show stronger patterns of integration in Australia and, to a lesser extent, the Netherlands, linguistic assimilation in France and the United States, and ethnic and cultural separatism in Germany. Our findings support Bourhis et al. (1997) ideological clustering model. We indeed found that Turkish immigrants have a high level of identification with the mainstream culture in Australia and in the USA, while they have much lower identification levels in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Turkish informants in Australia showed a combination of a relatively well-developed mainstream identity and relatively lower scores on scales dealing with Turkish identity, language, and culture. The German sample showed just the opposite pattern; higher levels of ethnic identification and lower levels of mainstream identification. Turkish immigrants in France showed highly intriguing patterns. Even though they identified strongly with the Turkish group, they neither perceived the value of Turkish to be high nor had a strong preference for using Turkish in interactions with others. In the Netherlands informants perceived the value of Turkish to be very high and identified with both the mainstream and the in-group. Less-educated Turks show fairly similar patterns of acculturation orientations in all four contexts, whereas better educated Turkish immigrants show varying patterns of sociocultural integration. Educated Turks in Australia show solid patterns of linguistic and cultural integration, whereas the Turks in France show strong signs of only linguistic assimilation. Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands and Germany exhibit comparable acculturation orientations. Nevertheless, the distance between the German identity and Turkish identity turned out to be larger than the one among Turkish and Dutch identity. A policy focus on language assimilation is often defended on the basis that language is the key to understanding and participating in a culture. The findings of this study suggest that assimilation policy is effective in France, at least for the better-educated groups, in that these groups often use the mainstream language in private situations. However, our study also suggests that language assimilation is not necessarily associated with a stronger mainstream identity. Speaking French is not the same as feeling French in this group. It may seem counterintuitive that the mainstream identity is strongest and the Turkish identity weakest in the country (Australia) that embraces multiculturalism and that puts least pressure on immigrants. We would contend that such multiculturalism policies may create or confirm a climate in which immigrants do not feel that their ethnic identity is challenged and therefore, feel less need to protect it. In countries with a less friendly acculturation climate, ethnic and mainstream identities are more incompatible (as shown by their stronger negative correlations). Multiculturalism is an area in which well-intended but poorly conceived policies may reach the opposite of their original intentions. Pressure to adjust to the mainstream can reach the opposite goal if the policy is not accompanied by mainstreamers who support

156

7 Discussion and Conclusions

the assimilation of immigrants by providing them with a sense of belonging to the mainstream group. Hoffman et al. (2020) recent research findings are in line with the results we obtained. Over the years not much has changed in the identification patterns of Turkish immigrants. According to Hoffman et al. (2020) 72% of their respondents identify primarily as a Turkish and very few identify primarily as a member of the host nation, though the Turkish-French community identifies primarily as French. The concepts of “Turkishness,” religion, and passing down Turkish traditions to the next generation are all very important components of their Turkish identification. Compared to the outcomes received in other immigration contexts such as Australia, France, Germany and the Netherlands, Turkish immigrants in the USA exhibit fundamentally different acculturation orientations. As expected, language turned out to be a prominent predictor in explaining the differences in acculturation orientations of Turkish-American informants. Because second-generation informants were born and raised in the United States, they went to mainstream American schools and acquired English. As a natural outcome, second generation’s English language skills are much higher compared to their Turkish skills. Very different from the European context, also the first-generation informants reported high second language use, choice and preference. This might be attributed to high educational and professional qualifications of the Turkish immigrant group in the States. There are some similarities between the second-generation informants in Australia and the United States, however, the differences with France, Germany and the Netherlands are quite large. The least intergenerational difference was observed in Germany but in the American context, the differences are very significant. These large differences between the countries of immigration can be explained on the basis of the receiving societies’ acculturation orientations and policies towards immigrant groups. As we documented in Chap. 3, there are clear differences between language use, choice and preference between first and second-generation Turkish immigrants. While the first generation prefers Turkish in communication with others, the secondgeneration chooses to speak in the national language of the country they live. Hoffman et al. (2020) conducted their study in Germany (1,064 respondents), Austria (416 respondents), France (452 respondents), and the Netherlands (425 respondents) with a total of 2,357 informants. The findings of Hoffman et al., (2020, p. 5) large-scale study is fully in line with our findings. Most respondents speak the language of the host country at work but prefer Turkish at home. They have access to news in their two languages equally yet when it comes to entertainment, they prefer Turkish language. All the informants rate their knowledge of Turkish highly but the second generation is more proficient in the language of their host country because they have been immersed in it from an early age.

7.3 Educational Achievement and Acculturation Orientations

157

7.3 Educational Achievement and Acculturation Orientations The relationship between acculturation orientations, language skills, socioeconomic status of parents, and school achievement has always been discussed in relation to ethnicity variable. Ethnic heritage has always been the main variable in many studies on school achievement, which is criticized as ‘political arithmetic’ tradition (Stevens et al., 2011). One of the key contributions of this Volume to the literature is showing the importance of first and second language skills of children from an immigration heritage. As discussed by Akoglu and Yagmur (2016), over the last 60 years, large numbers of research papers and dissertations have been written on Turkish immigrant children growing up in European countries. Most of those studies focus on immigrant children’s second-language acquisition, school achievement and other signs of their sociocultural and linguistic integration into the host society (Backus, 2011). Large-scale studies have shown that Turkish pupils in Dutch primary schools lag far behind their native Dutch peers in school achievement (Dagevos, Gijsberts, & van Praag, 2003; Extra & Yagmur, 2010). Based on semi-longitudinal comparative studies, achievement gaps between native Dutch and immigrant children are reported (Driessen & Merry, 2011) but the factors leading to those gaps are mostly not discussed. As reported by Leseman (2000) disadvantages of immigrant children are already manifest upon entering the primary school, when these children’s first (L1) and second language (L2) skills, in particular vocabulary, are less than the language skills of their monolingual peers. Nevertheless, Turkish immigrant children have to acquire a substantial vocabulary in the mainstream language to succeed in school, while they need to maintain and expand their L1 skills for all kinds of communicative purposes in the context of the family and wider cultural community (Scheele et al., 2010). An extensive body of research with monolingual children has established that children’s early language skills are strongly related to their experiences with language input in the home context (Scheele et al., 2010; Schwartz et al., 2009). Mothers’ involvement in their children’s education and the quality of linguistic input provided at home turn out to be crucial factors for language development. Home literacy activities, such as picture book reading and games requiring extensive language use result in extensive parent–child conversations (Scheele et al., 2010). Such activities enable parents to use an extensive vocabulary, complex sentences, and semantically interconnected discourse, which are generally known to stimulate language development in young children (Scheele et al., 2010). As shown in Chap. 4 of this Volume, there is little societal and institutional support for first language development of immigrant groups. Submersion education undermines the use of first language, which leads to subtractive bilingualism. Turkish immigrant children who grow up in low SES families mostly do not receive rich and elaborated language input to develop their L1 skills further (Leseman & van den Boom, 1999). Following interdependence theory of Cummins (1979), if the skills in the heritage language were underdeveloped, the second language learning would be weak as well. Given the relationship between first

158

7 Discussion and Conclusions

and second language skills, delays in first language development might cause delays in second language acquisition. Particularly negative circumstances of subtractive bilingual environment might be a better explanation for the reported language delays and lower school achievement of Turkish immigrant children. As fully discussed in Chaps. 4–6 in this Volume, as long as skills in the heritage language is not fully developed, the skills in the societal language might remain limited. It is possible to suggest a firm interdependence between the first and second language skills of children from an immigration heritage. The skills achieved in the first language predicts the skills achieved in the second language. Even though there is a general reluctance to refer to immigrant students as bilinguals and to develop bilingual programs for them, there is widespread support for mainstream students in various bilingual programs. Bilingual programs in high-status languages such as English-German or French-German find huge public support in the European context but strong negative attitudes surround immigrant children’s bilingualism. In a typical anti-bilingual fashion, many mainstream teachers believe that immigrant children are overloaded by dealing with two languages, which lowers their proficiency in the mainstream language. As the findings in Chaps. 5 and 6 have shown, immigrant children perform as good as the mainstream students in mathematics tests but the problem lies with language skills. As shown by multiple studies and also by the findings in Chap. 6, the problem is not the heritage language skills blocking second language learning. On the contrary, the skills in the societal language are much higher than the skills in the heritage language. When there is no support for heritage language development of immigrant children, their cognitive development is affected because cognitive development and language development go hand in hand. Besides, when a group’s social identity is stigmatized, self-esteem of individuals who belong to that group might be negatively affected, which in turn lowers the will to succeed at school. Immigrant languages are seen as obstacles before the learning of national languages in almost all immigration contexts. Nation-state institutions are not yet ready to offer bilingual education in the national and immigrant languages. Schools and teachers will continue to hold parents and students accountable for lower proficiency levels in the national languages. This situation will persist in the years to come because it is extremely difficult to change the status quo. Nevertheless, the language of exclusion and otherization can be softened to facilitate social inclusion of second and third-generation Dutch- or German-born citizens from an immigrant heritage.

7.4 Boundary De-Construction Instead of Boundary Construction As discussed by Yagmur (2019), integration of immigrants still dominates the social and scientific agenda of many European countries. Politicians and media talk about the issue of social cohesion, inclusion, cultural unity, language problems, school

7.4 Boundary De-Construction Instead of Boundary Construction

159

dropouts, criminality, unemployment and unmanageable diversity. In many European research projects, researchers take ethnic groups as self-evident units of observation and analysis. In the scientific domain, social scientists conduct research on acculturation of immigrants, language maintenance and language shift of allochthonous people, identity construction, and intergroup relations to understand the outcomes of immigration for the receiving societies. In designing their investigation, researchers treat ethnic minorities as fixed and static categories in time and space. As documented in Chaps. 5 and 6 in this Volume as well as by Yagmur (2019), most research ignores the dynamic nature of language use and identity construction that is shaped by contextual factors. In many disciplines, researchers hold onto the idea of bounded ethnic communities and fixed categories of belonging and identity. Many public institutions, for instance, National Statistics Bureau (CBS) and Socio-cultural Plan Bureau (SCP) in the Netherlands, and some researchers adopt and impose the discourse of ‘fixed groups’ and identities. Mainly on the basis of large-scale survey studies persons belonging to major immigrant groups are compared and contrasted to show the extent of ‘integration’ measured against fixed questions of ethnic identification, mainstream identity, national belonging, language use, ancestry, kinship, religion, and ethnicity. Such static approaches reproduce ethnicity-ancestry based divisions in the society. As shown by Wimmer (2009), simple ideas of belonging are seriously challenged by the socio-cultural reality of hyper-diverse societies. In the age of globalization, static models based on fixed categories of ethnic identification do not help us understanding the real issues such as increasing inter-ethnic conflict, school dropouts, and social segregation. Outcomes of linguistic and cultural contact need to be examined in different disciplines. Research methodologies need to be adapted to the social reality of super or hyper-diverse societies. In this respect, instead of constructing social and cultural boundaries between population groups based on ethnicity, heritage and language, policy-makers and opinion leaders in the society should search for ways of boundary deconstruction. Using inclusive language might be the first step. Instead of identifying third-generation Dutch-, German- or French-born individuals from an immigration heritage still as ‘immigrants,’ ‘diaspora Turks’ or ‘Muslims’, more inclusive language can be used. Australian or Canadian policies of inclusion might be good examples. Instead of achieving social cohesion and unity over the last sixty years of immigration, the discourse used to identify immigrants is becoming even more divisive. The existence of established immigrants and the arrival of many thousands of asylum seekers created new discursive practices among nationalist and conservative politicians. In particular, extreme right-wing politicians have identified immigrants as the cause of many social and economic problems. Increasing social, religious and cultural conflicts between the host and immigrant groups puts integration very high on the agenda of immigrant-receiving states. Social processes cannot be divorced from their socio-cultural contexts. Without a thorough understanding of the context of situation, it would not be possible to uncover the dynamics causing these sociocultural conflicts. In the European context, most of the conflicts reported in the media are related to migrant communities and their cultural practices. Immigrants and asylum seekers are constantly posed as aliens and invaders who threaten the

160

7 Discussion and Conclusions

integrity and homogeneity of national identity (Crowley & Hickman, 2008). The word ‘mainstream’ also implies homogenization and in this Volume, it is used quiet often to differentiate between European-born natives and people with an immigration heritage. In fact, just like immigrants, mainstreamers are also a very diverse group of people with very diverse opinions and attitudes. In the populist media, migration represents a kind of social and cultural threat to social cohesion and national unity, a position which is exploited by anti-immigration politicians. As a result, immigrants’ position as outsiders is strengthened in the public psyche and managing migration and promoting social cohesion appear to be a greater challenge for policy makers in most European nation-states. In addition, because most European countries have not considered themselves as countries of immigration, coming to terms with social and cultural changes is much harder. According to Samers (1998), in some European countries the ideological construction of nationhood continues to be significant in the social exclusion of immigrants. Especially in the case of Muslim immigrants, religious differences are seen as barriers to social cohesion and national unity. Both old and new immigrants are seen as the cause of rapid social change and as the bearers of social and cultural instability in the receiving societies. Blaming immigrants for the instabilities of social life fuels racialization and undermines social integration (Crowley & Hickman, 2008), as well as leading to increased socio-cultural conflicts. Media coverage appears to contribute to the spreading and intensification of such conflicts (Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, 2007). As a result, even the fourth generation European-born persons with an immigration background are seen as the ‘other’. They are constantly being presented as ‘outsiders’ not really belonging to the mainstream ‘original’ cultural group. As long as this mind-set does not change, the descendants of old immigrant groups will be identified as the ‘other’ even in the fifth generation. By comparing secondgeneration Mexicans in the U.S., North Africans in France, and Turks in Germany, Alba (2005) argues that in France and Germany, religion creates a bright boundary, which is even brighter for the Turkish immigrants in the German context due to the barriers to citizenship for the second generation that existed before 2000. Ethnic boundaries are the result of social interaction that gives rise to in-group members’ self-identification. Thus, ethnicity is an outcome of social processes, instead of a cultural given. It is a process of construction and reconstruction, and therefore should not be taken for granted (Wimmer, 2008). It can be conceived as a distinction that individuals make in everyday life, which is typically embedded in the social and cultural differences between groups (Alba, 2005). Wimmer (2008, p. 970) assumes that ‘ethnic boundaries are the outcome of the classificatory struggles and negotiations between actors situated in a social field’. He then argues that the main factors that shape the ethnic boundaries are the institutional frameworks, the distribution of power and political networks. Thus, how ethnicity is created by institutions, such as the creation of a nation-state or the institutionalization of a religion (Alba, 2005), or the manipulation of a sense of shared groupness through political discourse (Wimmer, 2008) contribute to the co-construction of intergroup boundaries. This boundary construction is not only based on ethnicity, nationality or religion. The way to achieve social inclusion is by deconstructing the boundaries between

7.4 Boundary De-Construction Instead of Boundary Construction

161

different population groups. This is of course easier said than done. Given the sociohistorical and cultural factors, achieving deconstruction of interethnic boundaries is extremely difficult. If state institutions, researchers and media refer to the third- and fourth-generation people from different backgrounds with their ethnic heritage, they normalize the construction of interethnic boundaries. Without realizing, we construct mental boundaries leading to ethnic, linguistic or religious segregation, which is the cause of most discrimination in the society. Inclusion is the best form of integration strategy. By constantly referring to the differences in terms of heritage, we might be excluding certain population groups. Referring to a young woman or a man as immigrant, while this person is the thirdgeneration descendant of a migrant family does not facilitate inclusion but leads to exclusion. Telling these people, ‘they are different’ and their difference might be the cause of their differential treatment in the schools, in the job market and so on does not facilitate social integration. Political discourse and media discourse influence educational specialists and teachers as well. Teachers implement all kinds of educational policies in the schools. They are important agents of policy implementation. Schoolteachers are human beings and they carry similar societal mental-images in their minds. If schools, public institutions, statistics bureau, the media and the politics refer to a section of their population as “Afghan, Moroccan, Russian, or Turkish”, heritage tracing becomes normalized. By maintaining ethnic categorization in research and education, we normalize ethnic differentiation and normalize the discourse used to identify such groups. Finally, the empirical evidence presented in this book shows the complex relationship between integration policies of immigrant receiving societies and the language maintenance and acculturation orientations of immigrant groups. Individual acculturation orientations are affected by language policy of the families and by the host society acculturation orientations. The media, politics and state organizations jointly shape the integration policies, which in turn impact the educational institutions, teachers and students.

References Akoglu, G., & Yagmur, K. (2016). First-language Skills of Bilingual Turkish immigrant children growing up in a Dutch submersion context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(6), 706–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1181605 Alba, R. (2005). Bright vs. blurred boundaries: Second-generation assimilation and exclusion in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(1):20–49. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0141987042000280003. Backus, A. (2011). Turkish as an immigrant language in Europe. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism, 2nd Edn. (pp. 770–790). Blackwell Publishing. Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386. Crowley, H., & Hickman, M. J. (2008). Migration, postindustrialism and the globalised nation state: Social capital and social cohesion re-examined. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(4), 1–23.

162

7 Discussion and Conclusions

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–255. Dagevos, J., Gijsberts, M., & van Praag, C. (2003). Rapportage minderheden 2003. Onderwijs, arbeid en sociaal-culturele integratie. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Driessen, G., & Merry, M. S. (2011). The effects of integration and generation of immigrants on language and numeracy achievement. Educational Studies, 37(5), 581–592. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03055698.2010.539762. Extra, G., & Yagmur, K. (2010). Language Proficiency and socio-cultural orientation of Turkish and Moroccan youngsters in the Netherlands. Language and Education, 24(2), 117–132. Hoffman, M., Makovsky, A., & Werz, M. (2020). The Turkish diaspora in Europe: Integration, migration, and politics. Center for American Progress and Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPR). Accessed Online 11 December 2020, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ security/reports/2020/12/10/491951/turkish-diaspora-europe/. Leseman, P. (2000). Bilingual vocabulary development of Turkish preschoolers in the Netherlands. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(2), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01434630008666396. Leseman, P. P. M., & Van den Boom, D. C. (1999). Effects of quantity and quality of home proximal processes on Dutch, Surinamese-Dutch, and Turkish-Dutch preschoolers’ cognitive development. Infant and Child Development, 8, 19–38. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. (2007). Conflict: Functions, dynamics and crosslevel influences. NWO. Rudmin, F., Wang, B., & de Castro, J. (2017). Acculturation research critiques and alternative research designs. In S. J. Schwartz & J. B. Unger (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of acculturation and health (pp. 75–95). Oxford University Press. Samers, M. (1998). Immigration, ‘ethnic minorities’, and ‘social exclusion’ in the European union: A critical perspective. Geoforum, 29(2), 123–144. Scheele, A. F., Leseman, P. M., & Mayo, A. Y. (2010). The home language environment of monolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716409990191 Schwartz, M., Kozminsky, E., & Leikin, M. (2009). Socio-linguistic factors in second language lexical knowledge: The case of second-generation children of Russian-Jewish immigrants in Israel. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 22(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/079083108025 04119 Stevens, P. A. J., Clycq, N., Timmerman, C., & Van Houtte, M. (2011). Researching race/ethnicity and educational inequality in the Netherlands: A critical review of the research literature between 1980 and 2008. British Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 5–43. Wimmer, A. (2009). Herder’s heritage and the boundary-making approach: Studying ethnicity in immigrant societies. Sociological Theory, 27(3), 244–270. Wimmer, A. (2008). The making and unmaking of ethnic boundaries: A multilevel process theory. American Journal of Sociology, 113(4), 970–1022. https://doi.org/10.1086/522803 Yagmur, K. (2019). The concept of minority/minorities in the European national and supranational EU discourse. Multilingua. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2018-0063