Language Maintenance and Language Shift in Crimean Immigrants’ Children in the United States of America

LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE AND LANGUAGE SHIFT
Language Maintenance and Language Shift in Crimean Immigrants’ Children in the United States of America
Abdureim I. AbdurashytovNear East University
ELT- 516
18 January 2013
Nicosia
1. Introduction
1.1 Background

Throughout history of Crimeans (or Crimeantatars) we can observe that immigrations to the United States began in the late 1950-s. Several Crimeans migrated to the U.S. with their families and children. However, nowadays the total population of the Crimean Diaspora in the U.S. about seven thousand (U.S. Census, 2010) many of them reside in the Brooklyn-Queens section of New York. Moreover, the percentage of Crimeans in the U.S. is increasing over the year.
The main focus of this research is Crimean immigrants’ language use within Crimean community with (family, relatives, and Crimean peers at school). Since, in Crimean peninsula Crimean (or Crimeantatar) language fatal underwent and still undergoing influence of Russian as a dominant language. Especially we observe this tendency among young generation. Although Crimeans readily admit that their mother tongue is Crimean, Russian remains the main language of communication. For instance, many Crimean children speak Russian among themselves.

1.2 Literature Review

Holmes (2001) states that using a minority language in a predominantly monolingual culture and society could be shifted over a period of ten years. However, it should be mentioned that language shifting may differ for different individuals and different groups. Migrants’ families are example to this language shifting process.
In country like United States, one of the first domains in which children of migrant families meet English is the school (Holmes, 2001). They may read news papers in English, watch television but at school they are expected to interact in English. Moreover, they are challenged to English because it is the only means of communicating with the teachers and other children. Consequently, for many children of migrants, English soon becomes the normal language for talking to other peers- including their brothers and sisters (Holmes, 2001). More to the point, in many families English become a primarily spoken language (Creswell, 2003).
We can also observe some pressures of society too (Holmes, 2001). “Immigrants who look and sound “different” are often regarded as threatening by majority group members” (as cited in Harris, 2006, p. 52). For example, language shift to English, has often expected of migrants in predominantly monolingual countries such as England, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Speaking good English has been a sign of successful assimilation and it was widely assumed that meant abandoning the minority language (Holmes, 2001). This process could extend three or four generations but occasionally language shift is completed in just two generations (Holmes, 2001). In fact, migrants are typically monolingual in their mother tongue, their children are bilingual, and their grandchildren are often monolingual in the language of the “host” country (Holmes, 2001).
There is no research on Crimean minority group of America to be mentioned. Thus, I would like to fill up this gap and to contribute to this area by current study.
2. Aim
This research aims to investigate Crimean Tatar immigrant children’s use of their mother tongue and English in communication with people of the same ethnic group. The study will investigate whether and how Crimean Tatar children maintain their mother tongue or shift to L2 in family and school environment.
2.1 Questions
The study will be guided by the following research questions:
Do Crimean Tatar children know their native language, and if yes, what is their level of proficiency?
Do Crimean Tatar children know English, and if yes, what is their level of proficiency?
What are Crimean Tatar children’s attitudes towards Crimean and towards English?
What language do Crimean children prefer to use in communication with their parents and grandparents at home?
What language do the children prefer to use in communication with their Crimean Tatar peers at home?
What language do Crimean children prefer to use in communication with their Crimean Tatar peers at school?
Do Crimean Tatar children use code switching and code mixing when communicating with other Crimean Tatars? If yes, in what situations and why?
Can language shift be observed in young generation in Crimean Tatar emigrant families?
What are the factors that lead to language maintenance or language shift of Crimean Tatar children in emigration?
Do parents influence their children’s use of L1 and L2? Do they support language maintenance or encourage their children to assimilate with the English-speaking majority?
2.2 Design
An ethnographic approach will be adopted. Using ethnographic method we can find out the meaning of behavior, language, and interaction of the cultural-sharing group (Creswell, 1997) by immersing in the day-to-day lives of the people. Holmes (2001) states that using a minority language in a predominantly monolingual culture and society could be shifted over a period of ten years. However, it should be mentioned that language shifting may differ for different individuals and different groups. Migrant families are example to this language shifting process. The research involves in extensive work in the field, called fieldwork, gathering fruitful data. As Wolcott (1996) comments, “They [researchers] establish what a stranger would have to know in order to understand what is going on here or, more challenging still, what a stranger would have to know in order to be able to participate in a meaningful way” (p. 6). The ethnographer should be good at dealing with fieldwork issues (Creswell, 1997). Thus, an ethnographic research will enable me to investigate how children of Crimean maintain their mother tongue or shift to L2 in family and school environment.
The design will not follow the (sequential) phases of data collection and data analysis. Rather, data collection and data analysis will be at the same time (concurrently) (Creswell, 2003).
2.3 Sample
The research will be based on school context with comparison out-of-school context and home context. Using different data sources of information this triangulation (Creswell, 2003) can result in well-validated and substantiated findings.
It is considered to recruit 20 participants. Among these participants ten of them are children from secondary school whose parents must be native speaker of Crimean. And, ten parents of those children will be involved in collecting data, in order to find out if there is any influence of parents to children’s use of L1 and L2. The proportion of male and female will be randomly selected.

2.4 Methods
The current study will utilize first-hand participant observation within the contexts (McNeill, 1985) which allows researchers to more directly experience aspects of the situation context. Also, the recording of participants’ naturally occurring talk, and open ended interviews to pursue their views and understanding towards the Crimean language. All these methods enable us to gain insights about the social practice within which language is embedded, and the influence of contextual factors both within and beyond the school.

2.5 Analysis
Data will be analyzed using form of linguistic discourse analysis (Maybin, 2009). Discourse analysis is concerned with spoken language, content, and function. And, the ways shared understanding is developed, in social context, over time (Mercer, 2010).
3. Ethics
As a researcher, I’m going to conduct “covert” research (McNeill, 1985) that is I will not let children know what I’m doing. Therefore, I will tell them that I’m writing a book, even if it is note purely frank. But, at the same time I will obtain informed consent from their parents.
The anonym of participants will be provided if it is necessary.

3.1 Outcomes
The study will provide clear understanding of the Crimeans children attitudes towards Crimean language. After that it will shed light upon issue of young children preferences in language selection in and out-of-school context. Consequently, we can notice if there any language shift takes place.
This study may be of a great use for new Crimean immigrants that might want to be aware or understand the problems their children would encounter while integrating in the U.S. society.
3.2 Timeline
First 3 months: carrying out design and one literature review. 4 months: fieldwork, data gathering and data analysis. Last 3 months: Conclusion, final thoughts and submission.
References
Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thausand Oaks, CL: Sage Publication, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design. Thausand Oaks, CL: Sage Publication, Inc.
Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociallinguistics. Malaysia, LSP: Pearson Education.
Maybin, J. (2009). A broader view of language in school: Research from linguistic ethnography. Children & Society, 23, 70-78. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00177.x
Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 1-14. doi: 10.1348/000709909X479853
McNeill, P. (1985). Reasearch methods. New York, NY: Tavistock Publication.
Pawluch, D., Shaffir W., & Miall, C. (2005). Doing ethnography . Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.