Turkish-language ability of children of immigrants in Germany: which contexts of exposure influence preschool children's acquisition of their heritage language?

Abstract

A lot of research has been devoted to explaining immigrants' acquisition of the language of the receiving country. However, less attention has been paid to explaining the acquisition of the heritage language among children of immigrants. The most important determinant for young children is exposure to the language. Language exposure can occur in various contexts, such as within the family, during preschool, through peers or via media. Our empirical analysis therefore explores which of these contexts is most statistically significant for the acquisition of the heritage language among children of Turkish immigrants. Using data from the project Preschool Education and Educational Careers among Migrant Children, we show that all contexts are important at different age levels but the acquisition of the heritage language is mainly determined by the exposure to it within the family.

Determinants of bilingualism among children: an econometric analysis

“…Consistent with the findings of Biedinger et al (Biedinger et al 2014), the greater the education of the parent, the less likely the child is to speak the origin language. For every extra year of parental schooling, children are about 1 % less likely to speak a language other than English at home.…”

“…The extent to which children retain their bilingualism as adults may depend not only on the home environment, but also on opportunities for using the immigrant language in the community. Biedinger et al (2014) attempt to answer the question of which contexts of exposure matter most in the retention of a heritage language for children, using data on young migrant Turkish children in Germany. They find that all contexts are relevant at different stages of development for retention of the language, but also that the parental input/family context is the most significant factor, both in terms of parental Turkish-language ability (positive effect) and in the education of the care giver (negative effect).…”

An Alternative Narrative of Integration In Germany through an Ethnographic Exploration of Cuban Immigration

“…Further causing ambiguity in its integration endeavors is that integration discourse is based primarily on its majority immigrant group. This majority, the Turkish migrants (Anil, 2007(Anil, , p. 1365, has an intimate history with Germany through its guest worker initiatives of the 1960s (Anil, 2005;Faas 2007;Pütz, 2008;Ozuekren & Ergoz-Karahan, 2010;Miller, 2012;Oner, 2014;Çelik, 2015;Biedinger, Becker, & Klein, 2015). Since these immigrants arrived and settled in Germany at a time when integration was not part of the discussion (Anil, 2005), they have faced several setbacks to successful integration.…”

“…This contrasts with Germany's majority immigrant group, as the FRG signed agreements with Turkey to recruit guest workers to fill the temporary void in the German workforce during the 1960's (Anil, 2005;Faas 2007;Pütz, 2008;Ozuekren & Ergoz-Karahan, 2010;Miller, 2012;Oner, 2014;Çelik, 2015;Biedinger, Becker, & Klein, 2015). For Cubans, migration was directed to the GDR during the Cold War because of Cuba's geopolitical and ideological relationship with the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies (Ireland, 1997, p. 546).…”

“…As Shohamy (2006) argued, "language continues to be used as a symbol of integration and belonging to the nation" (p. 2). Thus, language can either facilitate inclusion or produce exclusion (Blackledge, 2000;Piller, 2001;Shohamy 2006;Biedinger et al, 2015). It is also a marker that produces "justifiable" discrimination within Germany because it is neither an ascribed status, nor is it contingent upon socioeconomic class.…”