This article was downloaded by: [Colorado College]On: 27 October 2014, At: 18:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Family language policies, reportedlanguage use and proficiency in Russian– Hebrew bilingual children in IsraelCarmit Altmana, Zhanna Burstein Feldmanb, Dafna Yitzhakib,Sharon Armon Lotemc & Joel Waltersc

a School of Education, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israelb Department of English, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900,Israelc Department of English and Gonda Multidisciplinary BrainResearch Center, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, IsraelPublished online: 13 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Carmit Altman, Zhanna Burstein Feldman, Dafna Yitzhaki, Sharon Armon Lotem& Joel Walters (2014) Family language policies, reported language use and proficiency in Russian– Hebrew bilingual children in Israel, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35:3,216-234, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2013.852561

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.852561

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Family language policies, reported language use and proficiency inRussian – Hebrew bilingual children in Israel

Carmit Altmana*, Zhanna Burstein Feldmanb, Dafna Yitzhakib, Sharon Armon Lotemc

and Joel Waltersc

aSchool of Education, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel; bDepartment of English, BarIlan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel; cDepartment of English and Gonda MultidisciplinaryBrain Research Center, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel

(Received 3 June 2013; accepted 27 September 2013)

The relationship between family language policy (FLP) and language choice,language use, proficiency in Russian and Hebrew, codeswitching (CS) andlinguistic performance was studied in Russian-speaking immigrant parents andtheir Russian–Hebrew bilingual preschool children. By means of Glaser’sGrounded Theory, the content of sociolinguistic interviews with 65 parents wasclassified to form families with strict-Russian, mild-Russian and pro-bilinguallanguage policies. Preschool children (M = 6; 0) from these families wereasked to respond to questions about language use, language choice, proficiencyin Russian and Hebrew and CS on 10-point graphic rating scales as well asperform three linguistic tasks: noun–verb picture naming, non-word repetitionand complex syntax in sentence repetition. Findings for language use and self-rated proficiency showed the varying degrees of reported Russian languagemaintenance depending on the FLP applied in the home. Yet, performance oncomplex syntax showed better performance in Hebrew than Russian, andchildren reported more CS into L2/Hebrew than into their home language.These latter findings in the three FLP groups are interpreted as evidence forlanguage shift and may be attributed to greater influence of peers and siblingsrather than parents.

Keywords: family language policy; language choice; language use; languageproficiency; codeswitching maintenance and shift; Russian–Hebrew bilingualism

Introduction

The present study examines language policy in the families of preschool children ofRussian immigrants in Israel. It brings together three sociolinguistic interests: familylanguage policy (FLP), L1 maintenance in a specific immigrant context and languagedevelopment of preschool children. The overall goal is to examine the ways in whichFLPs of Russian-speaking parents are related to their children’s perceptions of languageuse and proficiency as well as the children’s actual language performance in Russian (L1)and Hebrew (L2). We first describe the Russian-speaking immigrant population in Israel,

*Corresponding author. Email: carmit.altman@biu.ac.il

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2014Vol. 35, No. 3, 216–234, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.852561

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

then review the sources of FLP research and conclude by examining the relationshipbetween FLP and children’s language performance.

Russian-speaking immigrants in Israel

Israel’s social structure is based on immigration (Spolsky and Shohamy 1999), thusproviding fertile ground for fostering multilingualism. In the early 1990s, Israel witnesseda massive immigration wave from the former Soviet Union, which added 600,000immigrants to its population in just five years (Dittmar, Spolsky, and Walters 2002) andmore than one million by the end of a decade. The sheer number of immigrant flow inthose years were high enough to encourage a strong tendency for language maintenance(Spolsky and Shohamy 1999) as signalled by high ethnolinguistic vitality and strongattachment to the Russian cultural heritage (Ben-Rafael 1998; Ben-Rafael, Olshtain, andGeist 1998; Burstein-Feldman 2008; Donitsa-Schmidt 1999; Epstein and Kheimets 2000;Feldman 2003; Kheimets 2001; Kopeliovich 2006; Kraemer et al. 1995; Remennick2003; Spolsky 1997). What emerges from the research cited here is that most adultRussian-speaking immigrants view L1 maintenance as central to their identity despiteresidence in linguistically mixed neighbourhoods and employment in Hebrew-speakingenvironments (Lissak and Leshem 1995).

Although sociological aspects of immigration of Russian-speaking adults andadolescents in Israel have constituted and continue to constitute the focus of manysociological, social-psychological and anthropological studies (e.g. Donitsa-Schmidt1999; Kheimets 2001; Niznik 2002; Remennick 2002, 2003, 2004), some attention hasbeen devoted more recently to the children of these immigrants (e.g. Kopeliovich 2006;Schwartz and Moin 2012). Nevertheless, preschool children’s sociolinguistic identity hasnot received much attention in part because of the lack of suitable methods for this agegroup and also because of the notion that social identity develops at a later age. The needfor studies of emerging identities in very young children is motivated by the fact thatchildren of this age undergo transitions in their sociolinguistic and cultural identityformation from family to preschool and to elementary school (Armon-Lotem et al. 2008,2013). The present study attempts to contribute to this goal by exploring linguisticperformance and sociolinguistic identity in the context of FLP among Russian-speakingpreschool children.

FLPs are a central focus of immigrant families in raising bilingual children. As such,they are of great interest to sociolinguists and educators for examining the relationshipsbetween policies and language behaviours of family members. FLP among immigrantfamilies varies in the degree to which the majority languages are integrated into the homesetting, which in turn influences the children’s proficiency in their first and secondlanguages. Patterns of language maintenance in immigrant families were explored longbefore FLP became established as an independent field (e.g. Fishman 1991, 2001). Kingand Fogle (2013) provide an extensive review of empirical research on FLP since the1960s, while studies in recent issues of the Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment (2012) and Language Policy (2013) examined a variety of minoritycontexts and language communities, both of which are particularly relevant to the contextof immigrant families. These studies explore FLP among Spanish speakers in the USA(King and Fogle 2006; Luykx 2005; Quiroz, Snow, and Zhao 2010), minority languagespeakers acquiring Dutch (De Houwer 2007), Japanese speakers in the USA and the UK(Kasuya 1998; Okita 2002), Amharic speakers in Israel (Stavans 2012) and Russian-speaking families in Israel (Kopeliovich 2009; Schwartz 2008; Schwartz and Moin 2012).

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 217

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Foundations of FLP research come from two major sources. One is Fishman’s (1991)Reversing Language Shift which argued for the importance of FLP for intergenerationaltransmission and for language survival. The other source is Spolsky’s (2004, 2009, 2012)proposal that the family domain involves an interrelation among three policy forces:language ideology (what people believe should be done), language practice (what isactually done in terms of language choices and behaviours in a particular domain) andlanguage management (explicit efforts to modify or influence language practices andbeliefs). These three components are related in complex ways: language ideology canboth dictate language practices and be affected by them, language practices can be the‘tools’ by which management is achieved and at the same time the objective of themanagement efforts. In the present work, we examine the interrelation among these threecomponents: we look at the practices reported by family members in relation to theirideology and at the actions taken to modify these practices when a mismatch occursbetween the two. For example, when siblings in a family with a pro-Russian ideology useHebrew among themselves, parents may take action to amend this practice which theyconsider undesirable. Such management mechanisms reflect the parents’ efforts to bridgethe gap between a pro-Russian ideology and their children’s bilingual practices.Perceiving FLP as a dynamic process allows us to go beyond merely reporting actualpractices observed in families and show what motivates these practices and howideological considerations are integrated into the family linguistic dynamics.

Relationship between FLP and child language performance

King and Fogle (2013) identify the three main areas of study within FLP research: (1) theparental accounts of bilingual child rearing; (2) the relationship between FLP and childoutcomes (including language proficiency, identity and cultural attitudes and languageuse in the home) and (3) the influence of broad social, cultural and ideological processeson language decisions within the home domain. Our focus is on the interaction betweenthe first two areas – parents’ reports on their language planning and use at home(incorporating Spolsky’s policy elements of ideology, practice and management), and theeffect of this policy on their children’s linguistic abilities and attitudes (as reported bychildren and as assessed by language performance measures).

Parents’ accounts of bilingual child rearing have shed light on the ‘invisible work’done within the family to promote home language maintenance (DeVault 1987; Okita2002). Several recent studies have explored the relationship between parental languagepolicy and children’s attitudes and performance (De Houwer 2007; Kasuya 1998;Kopeliovich 2009; Quiroz, Snow, and Zhao 2010; Schwartz 2008). These studiesemployed varying methodologies – ethnography, observation, interviews and question-naires – and involved children of varying ages. Kasuya (1998) found that youngpreschool children’s choice of L1 (Japanese) was related to parents’ consistency inspeaking that language, rather than to the kind of techniques used by parents to encourageL1 use. Parents most often opted for less imposing, implicit strategies, for example,repeating words the child said in English and continuing in Japanese, rather than explicitstrategies supporting minority language production, such as correcting the child’sutterances in Japanese or explicitly directing the child to produce a Japanese form.Quiroz, Snow, and Zhao (2010) showed that preschool children’s (mean age 5; 2)vocabulary knowledge in English and in Spanish was related to differences among theirfamilies’ use of those languages (as reported in parent interviews about their language useand language beliefs). Thus, Spanish use and Spanish reading at home correlated

218 C. Altman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

positively with children’s Spanish vocabulary scores (whereas longer residence in theUSA did not).

FLP of Russian immigrants in Israel was examined in Kopeliovich’s (2009)ethnographic study of Russian–Hebrew bilingual families with children ranging fromage 4 to 23 in a Russian-speaking neighbourhood. Using a range of ethnographic andquantitative methods, Kopeliovich (2009) found that despite parents’ deliberate Russianlanguage ideology and efforts to have their children speak Russian, there was a gapbetween parents’ commitment to Russian maintenance and children’s language use andproficiency – the contact variety of Russian spoken by these second-generation childrendemonstrated Hebrew influence regardless of FLP. At the same time, children raised inpro-Russian-speaking homes maintained an emotional connection to the Russian familyatmosphere and language, regardless of how deeply they were involved in Hebrew-speaking society outside the family and the neighbourhood. The author concluded thatFLP is one of the key factors in positioning second-generation heritage speakers ofRussian on the continuum of language maintenance.

The effect of language ideology, language practice and language management ofRussian–Hebrew parents of elementary school children (mean age 7; 2) on the children’sL1 lexical knowledge was examined by Schwartz (2008). Results showed evidence of acrucial role for L1 literacy in both family and other informal settings. In addition,children’s positive attitudes to L1 acquisition led to better vocabulary knowledge, butparents’ attitudes did not. Inconsistencies were found between the pro-Russian FLPdeclared by most parents and their more tolerant L2 language practices. In a further study,Schwartz and Moin (2012) examined the relationship between parents’ reports of 27three-year-olds and their linguistic performance in Russian and Hebrew. Parents’ reportsabout their children’s knowledge and linguistic performance were assessed by receptiveand productive vocabulary scores, semantic fluency and mean length of utterance. Theyfound that parents’ FLP decisions regarding the choice of preschool (monolingual vs.bilingual setting) were influenced by their tendency to overestimate the children’slinguistic performance in L1 and L2.

The current study expands on this research in the following ways. FLP types aredefined on the basis of parents’ ideological orientations with regard to attitudes andbeliefs towards the maintenance and development of L1 and L2. FLP was classified asstrongly pro-Russian, mildly pro-Russian and pro-bilingual based on parental interviews.The aim is to investigate the ways in which pro-Russian and pro-bilingual FLPs arerelated to children’s (1) reported language use, (2) reported language choice, (3) reportedcodeswitching (CS) patterns and (4) proficiency in L1 and L2. Combining an interest inlanguage attitudes and language behaviour, children’s language behaviour was addressedon multiple levels, both by children’s report and self-evaluation (e.g. Grueneich 1982;Surber 1982, 1985) and by direct assessment. The range of language tasks is extended toinclude vocabulary, morphosyntax in a sentence repetition (SR) task, phonology in a non-word repetition (NWR) task and complex syntax. In addition, CS, one of the uniquefeatures of bilingual speech (e.g. Friedman 2009; Hua 2008; Deuchar and Quay 2000;Pan 1995), is investigated by studying the reported frequency of this phenomenon and itsdirectionality from L1 to L2 and from L2 to L1 as a function of different parentallanguage policy types. These features are investigated in light of language maintenance aswell as language shift in preschool children, an age which is critical in terms ofsocialisation and language acquisition.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Predictions

The primary interest of this study is the relationship between FLP and children’s languagemaintenance and language shift. The central predictions are: (1) strict pro-Russian policyat home will result in more Russian language use, higher self-rating of ability and betterperformance on Russian language tasks among Russian–Hebrew bilingual children; (2)pro-bilingual policy at home will lead to greater use of Hebrew and better performance onHebrew language tasks, and (3) evidence of varying degrees of language shift fromRussian to Hebrew in all groups in the form of more reported Hebrew language use.

Language shift will be manifested in two additional domains. First, we predict thatwithin each group, performance on Hebrew tasks will be equivalent or better thanperformance on Russian parallel language tasks, and a finding of this nature will be takenas indicative of a transition to Hebrew. Second, more CS is expected from L1 to L2, andthe directionality of CS is expected to indicate a transition to Hebrew, with more CS intoHebrew than into Russian.

Method

Participants

A total of 65 Russian–Hebrew bilingual children (38 female) ranging in ages 4; 6 - 6; 9(M = 6; 0) and their parents were interviewed (see Armon-Lotem et al. 2008). TheRussian immigrant group has a strong tendency for Russian maintenance yet is highlyintegrated into Israeli society (see section on Russian immigration). This makes theirRussian–Hebrew-speaking children a good case for investigating the effects of FLP onlinguistic development. The children were early sequential bilinguals from Russian-speaking homes with exposure of 9–68 months (M = 35 months) to Hebrew primarily inpreschool. Thirty-one children were first-born, while 34 had older siblings. Thepreschools from which the children were recruited all had a majority of native Hebrew-speaking children. Excluded from the study were children at risk for language impairment(as reported by teachers and parents), children with a non-Russian-speaking parent andchildren from trilingual homes (e.g. Ukrainian).

Procedure

The relationship between FLPs and language use, language choice, children’s self-ratedproficiency and linguistic performance was examined by means of interviews with parentsand children. Language policy was assessed from data collected via parent interviews andcompared to children’s reported language choice and frequency of language use in thehome, frequency of CS, as well as self-rated language abilities in both languages,and linguistic performance on three parallel tasks conducted both in L1/Russian and inL2/Hebrew (a noun–verb picture naming task, NWR and SR). Data from both parents andchildren were recorded on SONY ICD-SX25/57 voice recorders, transcribed, coded andanalysed as described below. Data sources and data collection procedures included thefollowing sections.

Parent interviews

Sociolinguistic interviews with parents were conducted at a location chosen by theinterviewee, for example, home or workplace. A bilingual Russian native speaker (thesecond author) conducted all interviews in the parent’s mother tongue/Russian (except for

220 C. Altman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

one bilingual parent who preferred Hebrew). Questions included the child’s age, place ofbirth, number and age of siblings, the parent’s own age, age upon arrival in Israel, maritalstatus, country of origin, educational level, occupation, languages spoken at work,religious affiliation and contacts with the country of origin. Beyond this backgroundinformation, the interview included the following topics: information about the child’slanguage acquisition history, language learning experiences (first exposure to L1 and L2and transition from L1 to L2); the child’s family and friends; everyday activities;languages spoken by the child and language policy at home. Interview sessions lasted 90–120 minutes and included semi-structured spontaneous conversation, with the interviewerrecording brief notes on the major topics of the conversation.

The recordings were examined in their entirety for information relevant to the issuesinvestigated in the study. That information came primarily from responses to interviewitems related directly to FLP (‘Tell me about the language policy in your home’),clarifying the concept by providing examples of beliefs (ideology), (e.g. ‘What is yourattitude to the use of Hebrew at home?’), practices (e.g. ‘Which language/s are spoken inyour home?’) and decisions (management) pertaining to language use in the homedomain (e.g. ‘Do you have any rules regarding the use of Russian?’ ‘What do you do ifyour child starts speaking Hebrew at home?’). These questions were asked to ensureuniformity in understanding of the term by all parents. Transcription was carried out bythe same Russian native speaker who served as the interviewer.

Analysis of the interviews was informed by the ‘Grounded Theory’ (Glaser 1998) –an analysis in which a limited number of ‘core categories’ is developed based on a list ofthemes during a systematic process of coding and evaluation. The transcripts wereexamined for relevant themes, which provided the criteria for developing the FLPcategories. The themes were formulated on the basis of parents’ reports of their attitudesand beliefs regarding L1 maintenance and L2 development (e.g. CS, interaction betweensiblings and interaction with grandparents). The three FLP categories that emerged fromthe analysis were strict pro-Russian, mild pro-Russian and bilingual (the criteria for thecategories are presented in Table 1).

These categories were presented to two raters along with quotations from thetranscripts. A total of 65 quotations were classified into one of the three policies. Inter-rater reliability was 0.88.

In the present work, language ideology is instantiated in the division of families intothree policy groups based on the rating of the parent interviews: strict pro-Russian, mildpro-Russian and pro-bilingual orientations. Language practices are elicited via children’sself-reports of proficiency and use. And language management is inferred from therelationships between language policy groups and language use, that is, between ideologyand practice.

The decision to use ‘ideology’ as a focal point in the categorisation of FLP types wasmotivated by its ability to disambiguate similar practices stemming from different beliefs.To illustrate, the practice of siblings’ speaking Hebrew to each other can theoretically takeplace in the homes of all three policy types – parents with pro-bilingual ideology wouldencourage the use of L2 (Hebrew) along with L1 (Russian); parents with mild pro-Russian ideology would give into the influx of the L2 to their home; and parents withstrict pro-Russian ideology would take certain management actions to eliminate theundesired practice of speaking L2 in their L1-only home. This ideology-basedcategorisation is an attempt to capture family linguistic dynamics which may, otherwise,be overlooked if the distinction between the groups was based solely on practices.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 1. Family language policy types – criteria and examples from interview data.

Family language policy Criteria Example(s)

Strict pro-Russian . Parents think that Russian should be preserved.. Parents think that mainly Russian should be spoken at home.. If parents feel Russian is threatened, they will employ some

‘reversing language shift’ techniques such as sanctions for usingHebrew (e.g. mother is angry/the child will not be answered),policy of no codeswitching, asking the child for repetition inRussian.

. ‘I don’t want to hear Hebrew [L2] at home’ [ka754].

. ‘We ban Hebrew at home’ [ya28].

. ‘You won’t speak Hebrew to me; if you do, you’ll talk to the wallbut not to me’ [do43].

. ‘Hebrew is ruled out’ [yo88]

. ‘I become angry (when I hear Hebrew)…’ [yo82].

. Russian will stay as it was established from the beginning [mi08].

. Now Russian is dominant. If the problem arises, I’ll think how todeal with it [le24], [ya02].

Mild pro-Russian . Parent(s) think that Russian should be preserved.. Parent(s) do not forbid the child’s use of Hebrew at home. If Hebrew is encouraged, it is very instrumental, for example,

teaching literacy to prepare for school.. Parent(s) speak Russian, but may codeswitch themselves.

. ‘I try to talk in Russian; I answer in Russian even if they speakHebrew to me’ [ba06].

. There is a policy to speak only Russian, but sometimes I am tootired to insist [mi05].

. ‘Don’t know what to do, will think of something. Hope Russianwill remain as it was well established’ [em15].

. We ‘directed’ her towards Russian, but with time made it lessstrenuous [ad39].

. I am trying to speak Russian, as I don’t want him to lose Russian,but no policy, I don’t want it to be ‘bekoax’[forceful] it should‘lizrom’ [flow]/[ma11].

. Not imposing, believe that Russian will stay anyway [gu13].Pro-bilingual . Parent(s) think Russian–Hebrew bilingualism should be developed.

. Parents invest in both languages and expose child to bothenvironments.

. Parent(s) may codeswitch at home.

. We have a ‘one parent – one language’ policy from birth; now weare more relaxed because they have two languages [mi69].

. ‘In our home both languages are used, doesn’t matter which. It ismore important to carry the message across than in what languageit is said’ [av55].

. Whatever language he wants, that is what he speaks [el94].

. For me it’s important that she feels comfortable to move fromlanguage to language [sh03].

. Because he gets everything in preschool in Hebrew, we want toadhere to that language [ei93].

222C.Altm

anet

al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Children’s reported language use, language choice, language proficiency and CS

A variety of questions and tasks described below were used to elicit children’s self-reportsregarding language use, language choice, proficiency and CS. In order to allow the childto express himself or herself freely and accurately, data were collected in the child’spreferred language. Forty children were interviewed in L1/Russian and 25 children in L2/Hebrew. A χ2 test for independent samples revealed a significant relationship between thelanguage of the questionnaire and FLP group, χ2 = 6.14, p= 0.05. However, no significantdifferences emerged between the language of the questionnaire and the child’s perceivedspeaking and understanding abilities and performance on Hebrew and Russian NWRand SR.

(1) Language use in the home. In order to compare the child’s perception oflanguage use in the home with the parent’s language policy, each child wasasked, ‘Which languages are spoken at your home?’ Three responses to thisquestion were possible: Russian, Hebrew and both Russian and Hebrew.

(2) Language choice with parents/siblings. The child was asked how often he or shespeaks Russian and Hebrew with his or her parents and with his or her siblings.For this question and all others asking for a rating response, the child placed amarker on a 10-point graphic scale called ‘the magic ladder’, which had a sadface at the bottom to indicate ‘very little’ and a smiley face at the top to indicate‘high frequency’. The child was asked to place the marker on one of the rungs ofthe ladder. The child was ‘warmed up’ with this scale by responding to itemssuch as ‘How much do you like ice-cream/onions/soup?’ Children wereencouraged to use the entire range of the scale and not only the extremes (forsimilar tasks, see S. Armon-Lotem et al. 2013; Armon-Lotem et al. 2008). Thesetools are innovative in the study of children’s sociolinguistic perceptions, butsimilar tools have been successfully used with Surber (1982) and Grueneich(1982), showing that children are capable of providing a reliable report usingsuch a scale.

(3) Self-rated language proficiency. Each child was asked which language(s) he orshe speaks best, responding as above: Russian, Hebrew or both Russian andHebrew. This question was followed by a task where the child was presentedwith four statements:. I speak Russian well.. I speak Hebrew well.. I understand Russian well.. I understand Hebrew well.

The child was asked to rate (on the 10-point graphic scale) the extent to which he or sheagreed with each one.

(4) CS. The phenomenon of CS was presented to the child with the followingquestion: ‘Has it ever happened to you that you started speaking in one languageand then switched to the other language?’ Once the child replied that he wasfamiliar with this phenomenon, he or she was asked how often he or shecodeswitched from Russian to Hebrew and from Hebrew to Russian, respondingon the same 10-point rating scale.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Linguistic performance

Three tasks were developed to assess the linguistic performance: noun–verb picturenaming, NWR and complex syntax in SR.

(1) The picture naming task was developed originally for German by Kauschke(2007). The Russian version included 31 nouns and 31 verbs. For Hebrew, therewere 33 pictures of nouns and 34 for verbs. This task was developed andadapted to Russian and Hebrew by submitting the pictures to monolingualspeakers after eliminating culturally inappropriate items. The data from thenoun/verb picture naming task were analysed as a proportion of both nouns andverbs out of the total number of stimulus pictures.

(2) NWR consisted of 42 items in each language (see Armon-Lotem and Chiat[2012], for further details); it assessed morphophonological processing as wellas short-term memory (Baddeley 2003; Conti-Ramsden 2003; Dollaghan andCampbell 1998; Montgomery 2003). Items varied in terms of length (1–4syllables), consonant clusters (initially or medially) and similarity to the targetlanguage (wordlike vs. non-wordlike).

(3) An SR task assessed complex syntax (transitive, unaccusative verbs, longpassives, object topicalisation Object-subject-verb (OSV) and object relativeclauses). Twenty sentences (four items per syntactic category) made up of 4–7words in Hebrew and 6–9 words in Russian, reflecting different frequencies offunction words and inflexions in the two languages. This task was developedespecially for this age group. Data were analysed as correct/incorrect withrespect to the target structures.

Results

Findings regarding children’s perceptions of their language use, reported language choice,self-rated proficiency and CS are presented in light of the three FLPs identified in theparent interview data. The final section provides the results for the relationship betweenFLP and children’s performance on the three linguistic tasks.

Language use in the home

With regard to the languages reported to be spoken at home, a χ2 test for independentsamples showed a significant relationship between FLP and the language reported to bespoken in the home by the children, χ2 = 12.13, p < 0.01. Table 2 presents the percentage

Table 2. Parent language policy and language children reported spoken at home.

Question. Which languages are spoken at your home? Percentage of children (N)

Language practice Russian only More Russian than Hebrew Russian and Hebrew

Strict pro-Russian n = 16 37 (6) 31 (5) 32 (5)Mild pro-Russian n = 33 39 (13) 9 (3) 52 (17)Pro-bilingual n = 16 18 (3) 0 (0) 82 (13)Totals (65) 34 (22) 12 (8) 54 (35)

Note: Scores are presented as percentage of children and total 100% across each row.

224 C. Altman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

and number of children who reported speaking Russian only, more Russian than Hebrewand both languages in the home for each of the three language policy groups.

According to the findings in Table 2, children from homes with a pro-Russian FLP(both strict and mild) reported greater use of ‘only Russian’ (37% and 39%, respectively)than children from pro-bilingual (18%) homes. This finding shows the strength ofRussian ideology in children’s socialisation process.

Moreover, two-thirds (68%) of the children from strict pro-Russian family policygroup mentioned Russian as the only or dominant home language, as compared to abouthalf (48%) of the children in the mild pro-Russian group. Thus, strict adherence to a pro-Russian policy yields reports of greater use of Russian in the home domain.

Only a third (32%) of the children from families with a ‘strict pro-Russian’ policyreported bilingual language use, while more than half (52%) of the children from ‘mildpro-Russian’ families and the vast majority of children from ‘pro-bilingual’ families(82%) reported both languages to be used in the home. The less pro-Russian the FLP, thegreater the extent of Hebrew use in the home domain.

It is important to note that although ‘Hebrew’ and ‘more Hebrew than Russian’ wereoptions offered, none of the children reported Hebrew as the more frequent or onlylanguage spoken at home.

Language choice with parents/siblings

To examine how often children speak Russian and Hebrew with their parents andsiblings, separate analysis of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted for data aboutfrequency of language use with parents and siblings. Table 3 shows that children in allgroups were found to speak more Russian than Hebrew with their parents.

For language use with parents, a 2 × 3 ANOVA for language by policy group yieldeda main effect for language, F(1, 65) = 28.69, p < 0.001, such that Russian was reported tobe spoken with parents significantly more often than Hebrew. Overall, mean frequencieson the 10-point graphic rating scale were 8.16 (SD = 2.78) and 4.97 (SD = 3.41) forRussian and Hebrew, respectively. No main effect resulted for language policy group norwas interaction significant.

For language use with siblings, neither the main effects for language policy group(F < 1) nor the interaction were significant, F(2, 65) = 1.21, p > 0.05. Only in the pro-Russian policy group was there a trend towards speaking more Russian with siblings, butthis difference was not statistically significant. Moreover, the frequency of Russian and

Table 3. Parent language policy and frequency of Russian/Hebrew spoken with parents andsiblings.

Question. How often do you speak Russian/Hebrew with your parents/siblings?

Parents Siblings

Russian Hebrew Russian Hebrew

Strict pro-Russian 8.50 (2.81) 4.31 (3.32) 7.57 (3.55) 5.43 (3.72)Mild pro-Russian 8.38 (2.44) 4.90 (3.22) 6.54 (3.92) 6.29 (4.04)Pro-bilingual 7.43 (3.41) 5.78 (3.91) 7.23 (3.92) 7.46 (3.78)Total 8.16 (2.78) 4.97 (3.41) 6.96 (3.79) 6.35 (3.90)

Note: Scores are presented as ratings from 1 to 10 with their SD in parentheses.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Hebrew spoken to siblings in the other two policy groups was virtually the same. Whenspeaking to brothers and sisters, the children from all three policy groups reportedspeaking Russian and Hebrew with similar frequencies.

In an effort to clarify the relative frequency of Hebrew spoken to parents and siblings,an additional 2 × 3 ANOVA for family members (parents/siblings) and policy group wasconducted on the Hebrew frequencies. This yielded a main effect for family member,F(1,114) = 4.18, p < 0.05, such that Hebrew was reported to be spoken more withsiblings than with parents. No main effect resulted for the policy group nor was theinteraction significant. A parallel ANOVA for frequency of Russian spoken resulted insignificantly more Russian being spoken to the parents than to the siblings (M = 8.16 vs.6.96 for parents and siblings, respectively), F(1, 114) = 3.19, p < 0.05. The main effectfor the policy group and the interaction were non-significant.

Thus, a pattern of language use emerged, with more Russian being spoken withparents and more Hebrew with siblings.

Self-rated language proficiency

Each child was asked ‘which language/s do you speak best?’ Table 4 presentsthe percentage of children who reported speaking Russian, Hebrew or both languagesbest.

A χ2 test performed on the self-reported proficiency data showed a significantrelationship between language policy group and the language/s the child reportedspeaking best, χ2 = 12.09, p < 0.01. Forty per cent of the children in the strict pro-Russiangroup and 52% of those in the mild pro-Russian homes reported Russian to be thelanguage they speak best; this contrasts with only 14% of pro-bilingual children whochose Russian as the language they speak best.

With regard to Hebrew, 20% of the strict pro-Russian and 29% mild pro-Russianchildren stated that Hebrew was their best language, while 72% of the pro-bilingualchildren stated that Hebrew was the language they speak best.

As for those who chose both Russian and Hebrew, 40% of the children from the strictpro-Russian group chose the ‘Russian and Hebrew’ option, while 19% from the mild pro-Russian group and 14% of children pro-bilingual language policy homes chose thisoption.

These findings show a connection between language policy at home and children’sself-rated proficiency, with Russian being reported as better in both strict and mild pro-Russian homes and Hebrew being perceived as better in pro-bilingual homes.

Table 4. Self-rated proficiency in Russian and Hebrew for three policy groups.

Question. Which language/s do you speak best? Percentage (N)

Russian Both Russian and Hebrew Hebrew

Strict pro-Russian 40 (6) 40 (6) 20 (3)Mild pro-Russian 52 (16) 19 (6) 29 (9)Pro-bilingual 14 (2) 14 (2) 72 (10)Mean 35 (24) 24 (14) 40 (22)

Note: Sixty children responded; five related to languages other than Russian and Hebrew and were excludedfrom this analysis.

226 C. Altman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Self-rated proficiency: speaking and understanding

In a further investigation of the relationship between policy and proficiency, childrenwere asked to rate their speaking and understanding in the two languages on a 10-pointgraphic scale. Table 5 summarises the results.

For speaking, a two-way ANOVA for policy and speaking proficiency yielded a maineffect for policy group, F(2, 63) = 4.32, p < 0.05, with the strict pro-Russian group(M = 8.5) rating themselves as speaking Russian significantly better than the pro-bilingualgroup (M =5.06), as indicated by Scheffe post hoc analysis. No main effect emerged forlanguage (Russian vs. Hebrew), F(1, 64) = .02, p > 0.05, nor was the interaction of policygroup and language significant, F(2, 64) = 0.86, p > 0.05.

With regard to understanding, although no significant differences emerged, the trendswere in the same direction as for speaking: the children from both the strict and the mildpro-Russian homes rated their proficiency in Russian higher than their proficiency inHebrew, while the pro-bilingual children rated their proficiency in Hebrew higher thantheir proficiency in Russian. The overall numerical values in Table 5 are relatively high(considering the ratings were made on a 10-point scale), and this is especially salient inthe two pro-Russian groups. Children in the ‘mild pro-Russian’ group are thus moresimilar to children in the ‘strict pro-Russian’ group than to ‘pro-bilingual’ children for allratings of self-rated proficiency.

Parent language policy and CS

The self-reported frequency of CS was assessed by asking children how often theycodeswitch from Russian to Hebrew and from Hebrew to Russian; results are presented inTable 6.

Table 5. Parent language policy and self-rated proficiency in speaking and understanding Russianand Hebrew.

How much do you agree?

I speakRussian well

I speakHebrew well

I understandRussian well

I understandHebrew well

Strict pro-Russian

8.50 (3.26) 7.80 (3.30) 8.75 (3.06) 7.43 (3.57)

Mild pro-Russian

7.75 (3.72) 7.06 (3.74) 8.21 (2.97) 7.37 (3.86)

Pro-bilingual 5.06 (4.04) 6.62 (4.28) 6.18 (4.29) 7.31 (3.94)

Note: Scores are presented as ratings from 1 to 10 with their SD in parentheses.

Table 6. Parent language policy and reported frequency of CS.

How often do you codeswitch from Russian to Hebrew/Hebrew to Russian?

Russian to Hebrew Hebrew to Russian

Strict pro-Russian 6.33 3.86Mild pro-Russian 6.78 5.60Pro-bilingual 6.62 4.62Total mean 6.57 4.69

Note: Scores represent means on a scale from 1 to 10.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

The differences between Russian to Hebrew CS and Hebrew to Russian CS wereconfirmed by a two-way ANOVA for policy and CS direction, which yielded a maineffect for CS direction, F(1, 64) = 8.05, p < 0.01, with the Russian to Hebrew CS beingmore frequent (M = 6.57) than Hebrew to Russian CS (M = 4.69). Neither the main effectfor policy group, F(2, 63) = 0.62, p = 0.54, nor the interaction between policy group andCS direction, F(2, 64) = .42, p = 0.65), were significant. Further t-tests conducted foreach one of the language policy groups showed that there were significant differences inthe strict pro-Russian group for CS direction, t(14) = 2.78, p < 0.05, with Russian toHebrew CS being more frequent. The results for the mild pro-Russian group t(32) = 1.36,p = 0.18 and the pro-bilingual group t(15) = 1.51, p = 0.15 were not significant.

The finding here of more self-reported Russian to Hebrew codeswitching is especiallyimportant in light of the strong evidence for Russian language use and self-reportedproficiency in strict pro-Russian homes. This discrepancy is discussed below.

Language policy and linguistic performance

In this section, the three language policy groups are examined in terms of children’slinguistic performance in Russian and Hebrew on three different measures: a lexical taskassessing naming ability for nouns and verbs, a NWR task and a SR task probingcomplex syntax. The results are presented in Table 7.

A two-way ANOVA for policy (strict Russian/mild Russian/bilingual) and language(Russian/Hebrew) was conducted. On the noun–verb task, significant main effects forboth policy and language emerged, F(2, 59) = 3.00, p = 0.057 and F(1, 60) = 11.00,p < 0.001), respectively. Children from pro-bilingual homes performed significantlyworse on Russian tasks (M = 0.46, SD = 0.18) than children from pro-Russian homes(M = 0.64 and 0.61, SD = 0.14 for strict and mild pro-Russian homes, respectively). Inaddition, children from pro-bilingual homes performed significantly better in Hebrew inthe noun–verb task (M = 0.69, SD = 0.12) than in the Russian noun–verb task (M = 0.46,SD = 0.18). Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between policy group andlanguage, F(2, 60) = 5, p < 0.01.

On the NWR task, a two-way ANOVA yielded significant main effects for policygroup and language, F(2, 63) = 3.00, p = 0.057, and F(1, 64) = 10.00, p < 0.001).Children from mild pro-Russian homes performed significantly better in Hebrew (M =0.84, SD = 0.13) than children from strict pro-Russian homes (M = 0.76, SD = 0.13). Inaddition, children from strict pro-Russian homes performed significantly better in Russian

Table 7. Means (SDs) for three home language policy groups on lexical (NV), non-word repetition(NWR) and Complex Sentence Repetition (SR) tasks in Russian and Hebrew.

Proficiency in Russian and Hebrew for three FLP groups

Noun–verb naming Non-word repetitionComplex sentence

repetition

Russian Hebrew Russian Hebrew Russian Hebrew

Strict pro-Russian

0.64 (0.14) 0.64 (0.11) 0.85 (0.10) 0.76 (0.13) 0.79 (0.16) 0.87 (0.12)

Mild pro-Russian

0.61 (0.14) 0.66 (0.11) 0.87 (0.07) 0.84 (0.13) 0.76 (0.14) 0.90 (0.11)

Pro-bilingual 0.46 (0.18) 0.69 (0.12) 0.87 (0.08) 0.81 (0.14) 0.75 (0.19) 0.91 (0.10)

Note: Scores are presented as ratings from 1 to 10 with their SD in parentheses.

228 C. Altman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

in the NWR task (M = 0.85, SD = 0.10) than in the Hebrew NWR task (M = 0.76, SD =0.13). No significant interaction between policy group and language resulted, F(2, 64) =1.00, p > 0.05.

For the complex SR test, a two-way ANOVA yielded a main effect for language, F(1,60) = 52, p < 0.001, but no main effect for language policy. Children in each of the threepolicy groups performed better on SR in Hebrew than in Russian. The interaction wasnon-significant, F(5, 60) = 1.00, p > 0.05.

Discussion

This study contributes to current research by examining connections between FLP andchildren’s perceived language use and proficiency in L1 and L2. It does so by classifyingfamily policies (Spolsky 2004) as strictly pro-Russian, mildly pro-Russian and pro-bilingual, based on data from parent interviews. Preschool children’s reported use ofRussian and Hebrew, self-rated proficiency, reported degree of CS and linguisticperformance on lexical, phonological and syntactic tasks were examined across the threeFLP groups. A brief review of the main findings is presented below followed by adiscussion of the impact of the different FLPs on children’s use and proficiency. Inaddition, we relate to L2 acquisition phenomena that are characteristic of all children inthe sample, as well as methodological issues relevant to the investigation of thesemultifaceted phenomena.

Summary of findings

A significant correlation was found between FLP and children’s reported use of languagesat home. In particular, the stricter the family policy was at home, as reported by parents, themore Russian use reported by the children. Nevertheless, children in all groups were foundto speak more Russian than Hebrew to their parents and more Hebrew than Russian to theirsiblings. In addition, a significant relationship was found between language policy groupand the language(s) the child reported to speak best. With regard to self-rated speakingproficiency, the strict pro-Russian group rated themselves as speaking Russian significantlybetter than the pro-bilingual group. In terms of frequency of CS, more Russian to Hebrewthan Hebrew to Russian CS was reported by all groups. Finally, linguistic performance wasassessed by three focused tasks. On the phonological task, no difference was found forRussian, but children from strict pro-Russian homes were outperformed by children in mildpro-Russian homes in Hebrew. On the lexical task, children from pro-Russian homesperformed significantly better than children from pro-bilingual homes in Russian. On thesyntactic task, there was no difference between the FLP groups and all children performedbetter on SR in Hebrew than in Russian.

Thus, the impact of FLP on children’s reports and performance is evident from thedata on reported language use, reported language choice and the performance on thephonological and lexical language proficiency tasks.

The influence of FLP on children’s language use and language proficiency

Language use data show the strength of Russian ideology in the socialisation process.Language use at home shows firm adherence to a pro-Russian policy as reflected ingreater use of Russian. Thus, ‘Russian only’ was reported to be spoken more in pro-Russian homes, whereas a mixture of two languages was reported to be most common in

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

pro-bilingual homes. With respect to the distinction between the strict and mild pro-Russian policies, slightly more than a third of the children from both groups reportedspeaking ‘only Russian’ at home, while almost two-thirds reported using at least someHebrew at home. This suggests that rigorous (strict) policy measures may not be moresuccessful than more lenient (mild) methods in attempting to promote Russian or preventintrusion of Hebrew at home. It is important to note that no ‘Hebrew-only’/‘more Hebrewthan Russian’ homes were found among the Russian-speaking families in the study.

Self-rated data on the ‘language spoken best’ also showed a significant relationshipwith language policy type. Children from both strict and mild pro-Russian families choseRussian as their best spoken language. This trend was reversed for Hebrew, where mostof the pro-bilingual FLP children reported Hebrew as the language they spoke best.

The link between home language policy and the child’s self-rated proficiency isfurther established by the children’s rating of their speaking ability – children from thestrict pro-Russian policy group rated their speaking skills in Russian better than thosefrom the bilingual policy group. Thus, a high level of Russian language maintenance inpro-Russian homes may play a crucial role in enhancing children’s (perceived) speakingabilities.

Data on language performance also reveal the impact of FLP. On the ‘NWR’ task, ameasure of morphophonological knowledge, children from the mild pro-Russian and pro-bilingual homes performed better in Hebrew than did children from the strict pro-Russianhomes.

With regard to lexical abilities, children from pro-bilingual families exhibited thelowest level of Russian. Another important finding was that the two pro-Russian groupsdid not do much worse in Hebrew than the pro-bilingual group. Russian maintenancepolicy does not undermine Hebrew acquisition in terms of lexical knowledge.

Russian maintenance and Hebrew shift: one policy or two?

Children from all three family policy groups reported speaking more Russian thanHebrew with their parents. This suggests that parents, as proficient Russian speakers, areperceived by the children to be ‘Russian’ experts, regardless of their FLP ideology. As forsiblings, a reversed trend was observed, that is, more Hebrew was spoken with siblingsthan Russian. Having older siblings who are exposed to Hebrew mostly in formalsettings, may affect children’s perceptions of what should be spoken to them (see Harris1995, for an elaboration of peer socialisation).

At the same time, children performed better in Hebrew than in Russian on SR on thecomplex syntax task. This can be explained not only by the gradual shift to dominance inthe societal language, Hebrew, but also by the loss of morphological cases on nouns inRussian, which affects the children’s ability to use grammatical case for comprehensionand production of Russian complex clauses where word order is non-canonical.

In addition, the directionality of CS also favoured Hebrew. Mean frequencies ofswitching from Russian to Hebrew (M = 6.57) were greater than from Hebrew to Russian(M = 4.69), a finding consistent across policy groups. Notably, children in the strict pro-Russian group do not report CS less than children in the other groups, although strictfamily policy often explicitly discourages CS. Thus, it seems that language policy doesnot reduce the frequency of CS as one might assume.

These findings raise the following questions: (1) Why does the pattern of languageuse point to Russian, while use of CS favours Hebrew? (2) Can we speak about twodifferent policy types, one for overall language use and one for CS?

230 C. Altman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

With respect to the first question, one possible explanation is that it is an accuratereflection of bilingual reality, that is, most language use is monolingual, in the presentcase, Russian, and CS when it does occur (only 5% of the time according to Genesee2005), reflects a different reality. It should also be noted that Russian is dominant inhomes where interlocutors know Hebrew as well. Thus, CS is possible since theinterlocutor understands both languages.

Motivation for CS can be psycholinguistic (e.g. to fill lexical gaps in Russian relatedto preschool activities) or sociolinguistic (culturally shared words and phrases such asgan ‘preschool’ and kupat-xolim ‘healthcare clinic’ [Walters 2005]). By contrast, Hebrewis often used outside the homes where children cannot expect the interlocutor to knowRussian; so CS is not supported in this context. Moreover, many preschools have a ‘no-Russian’ language policy at school, which undermines the use of CS into Russian in theseHebrew-dominant contexts. We also propose that CS, due to its relatively infrequent use,may be a relatively salient feature of language. No child in the present study indicatedthat he or she did not know what CS is. Thus, in contrast to monolingual mode (Grosjean2001), CS may be a subtle, veridical measure of language use.

With regard to the second question, it can be argued that CS policy is distinct from FLP,as it goes beyond the need to preserve a language, and relates to the speakers’ desire to keepthe language ‘pure’. Parents from all the three policy groups mentioned their desire tokeep the two languages separate, regardless of language choice. Still, on all levels,parents admitted to ‘giving in’ to CS themselves, mostly due to laziness. As expected,most parents in the strict pro-Russian group adhere to a ‘no CS’ policy. However, manyparents in the ‘mild’ and even ‘bilingual’ groups expressed their desire and intention tokeep the languages apart. For example, the mother of SO68 from a mild pro-Russianfamily reported, ‘We are liberal about language choice, but we insist on “nocodeswitching” at home’. The mother of SH03, from a pro-bilingual family, said, ‘Wehave no language policy, but we do have a “no codeswitching policy”. I try to limit herfreedom to codeswitch. We teach her to finish the sentence in the same language’.

In conclusion, the results show that resistance to language shift efforts contribute to ahigher level of L1 – both in self-rated proficiency and in actual language performance asevidenced by results on the noun–verb (lexical) task. At the same time, resistance tolanguage shift policy does not seem to impede L2 acquisition. This is supported by thefact that children from all three groups report speaking more Hebrew than Russian to theirsiblings, claim to have a greater frequency of CS into Hebrew than into Russian and showbetter performance in Hebrew than in Russian on the SR (syntactic) task. Even in strictpro-Russian families, Hebrew was not compromised on most parameters by strictresistance to a language shift policy, that is, Hebrew development does not come at theexpense of preserving Russian. Furthermore, the presence of Hebrew at home does notthreaten Russian maintenance.

These findings facilitate the following conclusion: Russian is the language perceivedas most prominent in the home; it has vitality in terms of language use and perceivedproficiency that Hebrew does not enjoy. Yet, Hebrew is emergent (Kopeliovich 2006), asevidenced by the perceived amount of CS, and it may even be the language of greaterproficiency.

Methodological consideration

Beyond these substantive conclusions, certain methodological implications emerge fromthis study. It was shown that it is possible to elicit veridical and consistent data from

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

preschool children regarding their perceptions of the languages used in their homes andtheir own proficiency in those languages. There is, however, a difference between theseperceptions and their actual linguistic performance. Differences between perceivedlanguage use and actual language behaviour are not new. Lawson and Sachdev (2000)found stark differences between attitudes and use of CS among adult bilinguals in Tunis.Studies of bilingual children combining perception and production data are relatively rare,however.

We leave open the possibility that children’s perceptions of language choice, languageuse and CS may not be their own, but rather the results of socialisation from parents,siblings and peers. They do, however, report them reliably. For this reason precisely,language performance data, as reported here, are crucial, since they provide behaviouralevidence for attitude data. The findings from the present study are consistent across awide variety of tasks, all conducted with methods tailored to preschool children. Theyshow that FLP plays a major role in children’s self-perception of language and languageuse, and in L1 maintenance, but has a weaker effect on L2 acquisition.

AcknowledgementsThis paper was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)(Grant 01UW0702B). We thank the participants and their parents, and the data coders, SvetaFichman and Nadya Kogan. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their stimulatingcomments.

ReferencesArmon-Lotem, Sh., C. Altman, Zh. Burstein-Feldman, and J. Walters. 2013. “Sociolinguistic

Aspects of the Language of Immigrant Children.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language andLinguistics, Vol. 2, edited by S. Bolozky, G. Khan, G. Rendsburg, A. Rubin, O. Schwarzwald,and T. Zewi, 232–236. Boston-Leiden: Brill.

Armon-Lotem, Sh., and S. Chait. 2012. “How Do Sequential Bilingual Children Perform on Non-word Repetition Tasks?” Proceedings of the 36th Annual Boston University Conference onLanguage Development, edited by A. K. Biller, E. Y. Chung, and A. E. Kimball, 53–62.Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Armon-Lotem, Sh., N. Gagarina, C. Altman, Zh. Burstein-Feldman, G. Gordishevsky, O. Gupol,and J. Walters. 2008. “Language Acquisition as a Window to Social Integration among RussianLanguage Minority Children in Israel.” Israel Studies in Language and Society 1: 155–177.

Baddeley, A. D. 2003. “Working Memory: Looking Back and Looking Forward.” Nature ReviewsNeuroscience 4: 829–839. doi:10.1038/nrn1201

Ben-Rafael, E. 1998. “The Israeli Experience in Multiculturalism.” In Blurred Boundaries:Migration, Ethnicity, Citizenship, edited by R. Baubock and J. Rundell, 111–142. Aldershot,Brookfield, Vienna: Ashgate and the European Centre Vienna.

Ben-Rafael, E., E. Olshtain, and I. Geist. 1998. “Identity and Language: The Social Insertion ofSoviet Jews in Israel.” In Immigration to Israel: Sociological Perspectives. Studies of IsraeliSociety Series, edited by E. Leshem and J. T. Shuval, 333–356. New Brunswick London:Transaction Books.

Burstein-Feldman, Zh. 2008. “Language and Identity in the Integration of Russian-speakingImmigrants in Israel: An Intergenerational Study.” PhD Dissertation., Bar-Ilan University,Ramat Gan.

Conti-Ramsden, G. 2003. “Introduction: Methodological Concerns.” In Language Competenceacross Populations: Towards a Definition of Specific Language Impairment, edited by Y. Levyand J. Schaeffer, 197–208. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

De Houwer, A. 2007. “Parental Language Input Patterns and Children’s Bilingual Use.” AppliedPsycholinguistics 28: 411–424. doi:10.1017/S0142716407070221

Deuchar, M., and S. Quay. 2000. Bilingual Acquisition: Theoretical Implications of a Case Study.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

232 C. Altman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

DeVault, M. 1987. “Doing Housework: Feeding and Family Life.” In Families and Work, edited byN. Gerstel and H. Gross, 178–191. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Dittmar, N., B. Spolsky, and J. Walters, 2002. Convergence and Divergence in Second LanguageAcquisition and Use: An Examination of Immigrant Identities. Final Project Report. Jerusalem:German Israel Research Foundation.

Dollaghan, C., and T. F. Campbell. 1998. “Nonword Repetition and Child Language Impairment.”Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41: 1136–1146.

Donitsa-Schmidt, S. 1999. “Language Maintenance or Shift – Determinants of Language Choiceamong Soviet Immigrants in Israel.” PhD diss., University of Toronto.

Epstein, A., and N. Kheimets. 2000. “Immigrant Intelligentsia and Its Second Generation: CulturalSegregation as a Road to Social Integration?” Journal of International Migration andIntegration 1 (4): 461–476. doi:10.1007/s12134-000-1025-1

Feldman, E. 2003. Russian Israel: Between the Two Poles. Moscow: Market DS [in Russian].Fishman, J. A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of

Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Fishman J. A., ed. 2001. Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Friedman, D. 2009. “Vowels Make a Language More Beautiful: Co-constructing Language

Ideologies in Ukrainian Classrooms.” Paper presented at the Conference of the AmericanAssociation of Applied Linguistics, Denver, CO, March 21–24.

Genesee, F. 2005. “The Capacity of the Language Faculty: Contributions from Studies ofSimultaneous Bilingual Acquisition.” In ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposiumon Bilingualism, edited by J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, and J. MacSwan, 890–901.Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Glaser, B. G. 1998. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley, CA: SociologyPress.

Grosjean, F. 2001. “The Bilingual’s Language Modes.” In One Mind, Two Languages: BilingualLanguage Processing, edited by J. Nicol, 1–22. Oxford: Blackwell.

Grueneich, R. 1982. “Issues in the Developmental Study of How Children Use Intention andConsequence Information to Make Moral Evaluations.” Child Development 53 (1): 29–43.doi:10.2307/1129636

Harris, J. R. 1995. “Where Is the Child’s Environment? A Group Socialization Theory ofDevelopment.” Psychological Review 102: 458–489. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.458

Hua, Z. 2008. “Duelling Languages, Duelling Values: Codeswitching in Bilingual IntergenerationalConflict Talk in Diasporic Families.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (10): 1799–1816. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.007

Kasuya, H. 1998. “Determinants of Language Choice in Bilingual Children: The Role of Input.”International Journal of Bilingualism 2 (3): 327–346.

Kauschke, C. 2007. Erwerb und Verarbeitung von Nomen und Verben [Acquisition and Processingof Nouns and Verbs]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Kheimets, N. 2001. “Dilemmas of Sociolinguistic identity of the Russian Jewish Intelligentsia inIsrael: Between State, Community and Labor Market.” MA thesis, The Hebrew University,Jerusalem.

King, K. A., and L. Fogle. 2006. “Bilingual Parenting as Good Parenting: Parents’ Perspectives onFamily Language Policy for Additive Bilingualism.” International Journal of BilingualEducation and Bilingualism 9 (6): 695–712. doi:10.2167/beb362.0

King, K. A., and L. W. Fogle. 2013. “Family Language Policy and Bilingual Parenting.” LanguageTeaching 46 (2): 172–194. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000493

Kopeliovich, S. 2006. “Reversing Language Shift in the Immigrant Family: A Case Study of aRussian-speaking Community in Israel.” PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan.

Kopeliovich, S. 2009. Reversing Language Shift in the Immigrant Family: A Case-Study of aRussian-speaking Community in Israel. Frankfurt: VDM Verlag.

Kraemer, R., D. Zisenwine, M. Levy-Keren, and D. Schers. 1995. “A Study of Jewish AdolescentRussian Immigrants in Israel: Language and Identity.” International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage 116: 153–159. doi:10.1515/ijsl.1995.116.153

Lawson, S., and I. Sachdev. 2000. “Codeswitching in Tunisia: Attitudinal and BehaviouralDimensions.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (9): 1343–1361. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00103-4

Lissak, M., and E. Leshem. 1995. “The Russian Intelligentsia in Israel: Between Ghettoization andIntegration.” Israel Affairs 2 (2): 20–36.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Luykx, A. 2005. “Children as Socializing Agents: Family Language Policy in Situations of LanguageShift.” In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, edited by J. Cohen,K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, and J. MacSwan, 1407–1414. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Montgomery, J. W. 2003. “Working Memory and Comprehension in Children with SpecificLanguage Impairment: What We Know So Far.” Journal of Communication Disorders 36 (3):221–231. doi:10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00021-2

Niznik, M. 2002. “Identification of Adolescents from Russian-speaking Immigrant Families.” Paperpresented at the IASL Conference – Language and Identity in the Multicultural Society, Tel-Aviv University, May 5–6.

Okita, T. 2002. Invisible Work – Bilingualism, Language Choice and Childrearing in IntermarriedFamilies (Impact Studies in Language and Society). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pan, B. A. 1995. “Code Negotiation in Bilingual Families: My Body Starts Speaking English.”Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 16 (4): 315–328. doi:10.1080/01434632.1995.9994610

Quiroz, B., C. E. Snow, and J. Zhao. 2010. “Vocabulary Skills of Spanish/English Bilinguals:Impact of Mother–child Language Interactions and Home Language and Literacy Support.”International Journal of Bilingualism 14 (4): 379–399. doi:10.1177/1367006910370919

Remennick, L. 2002. “Transnational Community in the Making: Russian-Jewish Immigrants of the1990s in Israel.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 28 (3): 515–530. doi:10.1080/13691830220146581

Remennick, L. 2003. “From Russian to Hebrew via HebRush: Intergenerational Patterns ofLanguage Use among Former Soviet Immigrants in Israel.” Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development 24 (5): 431–453. doi:10.1080/01434630308666509

Remennick, L. 2004. “Language Acquisition, Ethnicity and Social Integration among FormerSoviet Immigrants of the 1990s in Israel.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 27 (3): 431–454.doi:10.1080/01491987042000189213

Schwartz, M. 2008. “Exploring the Relationship between Family Language Policy and HeritageLanguage Knowledge among Second Generation Russian-Jewish Immigrants in Israel.” Journalof Multilingual and Multicultural Development 29 (5): 400–418.

Schwartz, M., and V. Moin. 2012. “Parents’ Assessment of Their Preschool Children’s BilingualDevelopment in the Context of Family Language Policy.” Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development 33 (1): 35–55. doi:10.1080/01434632.2011.638078

Spolsky, B. 1997. “Multilingualism in Israel.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 17: 138–150.doi:10.1017/S0267190500003317

Spolsky, B. 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Spolsky, B. 2009. Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Spolsky, B. 2012. “Family Language Policy – The Critical Domain.” Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development 33 (1): 3–11. doi:10.1080/01434632.2011.638072Spolsky, B., and E. Shohamy. 1999. The Languages of Israel: Policy, Ideology and Practice.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Stavans, A. 2012. “Language Policy and Literary Practices in the Family: The Case of Ethiopian

Parental Narrative Input.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33 (1): 13–33. doi:10.1080/01434632.2011.638073

Surber, C. F. 1982. “Separable Effects of Motives, Consequences, and Presentation Order onChildren’s Moral Judgments.” Developmental Psychology 18 (2): 257–266. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.18.2.257

Surber, C. F. 1985. “Applications of Information Integration to Children’s Social Cognitions.” InThe Development of Social Cognition, edited by J. Pryor and J. Day, 59–94. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Walters, J. 2005. Bilingualism: The Sociopragmatic-Psycholinguistic Interface. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum/Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

234 C. Altman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

8:52

27

Oct

ober

201

4