Immigrant Language Maintenance

While the area of language and second generation immigrants has commonly been of interest to social scientists, there has been increasing concern for processes of language maintenance and attrition in these groups. This is reflected in research spanning several fields, each of which provide a different theoretical and associated methodological approach. Namely, the more policy-focused and quantitative studies typically aim to determine the degree to which native-born children of immigrants maintain fluency in or preference for the language of their foreign-born parents, and whether this correlates with demographic factors such as parents’ ethnicity. These approaches are associated with survey data analysis and are often designed to inform

It introduces the concept of linguistic survival curves, or how many generations it takes until no descendants are proficient in the immigrant language (2006, p. 448). The study was conducted in reaction to theories that Latinos are unlikely to acculturate and therefore threaten the dominant language of the United States, which is a common anti-immigration argument. Through analysis of representative longitudinal survey data, they found languages ‘died’ after three generations on average, with some variation based on nationality. The study provides a useful measure of generational divisions by accounting for mixed foreign and native-born parentage, as well as foreign-born children who immigrated at an early age. However, it does not consider the presence of multilingual or mixed ethnic populations, and may not be generalizable to areas with fewer ethnic

The study used questionnaires including items measuring length of U.S. residence and questions for students’ parents. It found attrition rates were high and most strongly correlated with duration of residence and parents’ ethnicity. Bilingualism was also linked to nationality and living in ethnic enclaves, as well as higher educational achievement. The study is part of a wider body of work on ethnicity and language in education, which informs language planning. It considers both historical and cultural contexts, and its methodological distinction between preferred language and actual use is significant as the two are often conflated, which can lead to errors in measurement. Even so, there is opportunity to further distinguish language fluency by form, such as verbal or written competence. As the study is tied to policy, it would have been particularly useful to consider ways in which immigrant languages are learned or maintained, such as through second language classes or weekend language centers. Finally, as with Alba et al., greater insight may also be achieved through closer examination of contexts in which languages are