Language, Culture and Curriculum

Vol. 22, No. 1, March 2009, 15–28

Socio-linguistic factors in second language lexical knowledge:

the case of second-generation children of Russian-Jewish immigrants
in Israel
Mila Schwartza
, Ely Kozminskyb and Mark Leikinc
a
Department of Learning Disabilites, Oranim Colloge of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa,
Israel; bDepartment of Education, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, Israel; cDepartment of
Learning Disabilites, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

The factors affecting the mastery of the host country’s language by the children of
immigrants are important in the study of immigration-related issues. This exploratory
study analyses the possible link between parental socio-linguistic background factors
(parent –child language choice, parental proficiency in L2, educational level, socio-
economic status, and the length of residence in the host country) and the children’s
social milieu on the one hand and children’s lexical knowledge of L2 on the other
among Russian-Jewish immigrants to Israel. Participants in the study were 70
Russian –Hebrew speaking children with a mean age of 7 years 2 months and their
parents, all Russian-Jewish immigrants in Israel. After investigating the factors that
influence Hebrew (L2) vocabulary knowledge, we constructed a composite measure
of Hebrew lexical knowledge. In addition, structured questionnaires for parents and
children were developed to collect data on target socio-linguistic factors. The findings
showed that variability in children’s L2 lexical knowledge can be understood, to some
extent, by three background factors: parents’ educational level, parents’ educational
experience in the host country, and the length of family residence in the host country.
At the same time, the role of parent–child language choice, parental L2 proficiency,
and children’s social milieu was found to be insignificant. These data are discussed in
the context of the distinctive socio-cultural characteristics of the Russian-Jewish
immigrant community in Israel.
Keywords: lexical knowledge in L2; second-generation children of immigrants;
Russian-Jewish immigrants in Israel; parental educational level; language input;
children’s social milieu

Introduction
Widespread migration of populations across national and continental boundaries is one of
the defining characteristics of the twentieth century. The topic of immigration must also
focus on factors strongly associated with mastery of the host country’s language (L2) by
the children of immigrants. It is commonly accepted that lexical knowledge is an important
factor in school success. Early deficiency in vocabulary understanding and expression
appears to have a strong effect on listening and reading comprehension as well as on
further academic progress (Biemiller, 2005). Bilingual children often enter school with
limited proficiency in L2.

Corresponding author. Email: milasch@bgu.ac.il

ISSN 0790-8318 print/ISSN 1747-7573 online

# 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/07908310802504119
http://www.informaworld.com
16 M. Schwartz et al.

The present study is part of a large-scale longitudinal research project aimed at

investigating lexical knowledge in Russian as a first language (L1) and Hebrew as a
second language (L2) among second-generation children (aged 7) of Russian-Jewish
(RJ) immigrants in Israel (Schwartz, 2008; Schwartz, Kozminsky, & Leikin, 2008). The
children were born in the host country and educated from early pre-school age in a subtrac-
tive bilingual environment (Lambert, 1975). Subtractive bilingualism occurs when con-
ditions favour the development of a second language. It is, therefore, reasonable to
assume that raising a child in non-additive Hebrew L2 pre-school settings leads to adequate
command of L2. But both research findings and educators’ reports indicate that Hebrew L2
lexical knowledge of Russian – Hebrew-speaking (RHS) children was found to be reliably
weaker than that of their monolingual peers (Schwartz, Kozminsky, & Leikin, in prep-
aration). It should also be noted that self-reports of 43% of the children stated that they
experienced listening comprehension problems with instructional material in school, and
41% reported reading comprehension problems with textbooks. Most important, greater
intra-group variations were found within the RHS group than within the Hebrew-speaking
monolingual group.
A great number of factors are associated with lexical knowledge in L2 (Baker, 2001;
Ellis, 1985; Spolsky, 1989). The primary focus in the present study was on the possible
link between parental socio-linguistic background factors (parent – child language choice,
parental proficiency in Hebrew L2, educational level, socio-economic status (SES), and
the length of residence in the host country) and the children’s social milieu (percent of
Russian-speaking classmates and percent of Russian-speaking friends) on the one hand
and the children’s lexical knowledge of Hebrew L2 on the other.

Factors affecting L2 lexical knowledge among the children of immigrants

Language input and social milieu
Among the factors associated with L2 lexical knowledge among bilingual children, one
of the most relevant is L2 input (Cobo-Lewis, Pearson, Eilers, & Umbel, 2002; De
Houwer, 1995; Ellis, 1985). The child’s linguistic input refers to language interaction
in the Yfamily milieu (parents, grandparents, siblings) and social milieu (friends, class-
mates, caregivers, educators) (De Houwer, 1995). Because of a sweeping consensus that
socio-linguistic situations contribute significantly to the bilingual child’s mastery of L2,
their role is taken into account in the organisation of data collection settings and in
the analysis and interpretation of the data (Bialystok, 2001; De Houwer, 1995). For
example, addressing the role of dual input (L1þL2) at home, Cobo-Lewis et al.
(2002) used English literacy and oral proficiency measures to compare bilingual chil-
dren equally exposed to English (L2) and Spanish (L1) at home (ESH) with their
bilingual peers exposed only to L1 Spanish at home (OSH) and with monolingual
English-speaking children. A large sample of 952 Hispanic (Spanish – English speaking)
and monolingual (English-speaking) children (kindergarteners, second graders, and fifth
graders) from Miami participated in the study. Group selection was based on parental
reports of linguistic interactions in the family. The researchers reported a strong effect
of ESH, especially on oral English (L2) proficiency (ESH children enjoyed an advantage
of 7 points in their score over their OSH peers, or nearly half a standard deviation,
compared with a 2-point advantage on the literacy tests). The authors concluded that
L2 exposure was important mainly in the first years of life. Moreover, as over 90% of
children in the schools participating in the study were bilingual, there was an apparent
effect of limited L2 native proficiency. This suggests the need to examine further the
 Language, Culture and Curriculum 17

role that speaker models play in the attainment of L2 lexical knowledge among young
bilinguals.
In sum, it is possible that because of the large heterogeneity of L1–L2 input patterns in the
child’s day-to-day activities, which considerably complicates the identification of input
models, few studies have directly and systematically examined L1–L2 input patterns
(Bialystok, 2001; De Houwer, 1995, 1999). Moreover, it appears that it is not sufficient to
know what language each person uses with the child, but it is also important to determine
what is his or her estimated level of mastery in the target language (De Houwer, 1995,
1999; Pearson, 2006). In the present study, we investigated the extent to which parent–child
language choice, parental proficiency in L2, and the percent of bilingual children in the
classroom and in children’s social milieu are related to the children’s lexical knowledge in L2.

Length of residence in the host country

The literature suggests that the length of the immigrant families’ residence in the host
country is strongly associated with both L2 proficiency and L1 attrition among immigrant
children (Baker, 2001). The longer the families have resided in the country, the better their
command of L2 and the greater the language shift. The present study examined whether the
role of the length of the parents’ residence in the country of immigration remains significant
for L2 knowledge in the second generation.

Parents’ SES and educational level

Another important factor in L2 mastery is the SES of immigrant families, but research
results concerning the role of SES in the ability of young bilinguals to master L2 vocabulary
are inconclusive. Oller and Pearson (2002) argued that the apparent ability of children to profit
from the bilingual experience might result from the advantage associated with their socio-
economic background, which provides access to more reading material in the home, additional
parental involvement in the education process, and consequently greater academic support. In
contrast, bilingual children born into poverty have been exposed to fewer books and have had
fewer opportunities to increase both their L1 and L2 vocabulary. This argument was examined
in the Cobo-Lewis et al. (2002) study mentioned above. The researchers distinguished
between the effects of SES and bilingualism and demonstrated that SES had an especially
large effect on English (L2) oral proficiency. But even after controlling for SES, monolinguals
outperformed bilinguals on oral English tasks, suggesting that advantages associated with
high SES cannot eliminate the effect of bilingualism, that is, presumably the effect of
limited exposure to L2 on knowledge of L2 vocabulary. It should also be noted that to date
the standard approach to the description of bilingual parental background has been limited
to reports on income and occupation, without reference to education as a separate factor.
This approach may be attributed to the fact that in most immigrant communities parental
educational level is highly correlated with SES (Kosmin, 1990), with no discrepancy
between the former and the latter. For example, Cobo-Lewis et al. (2002) reported a strong
connection between the SES of Hispanic families in Miami and their educational background,
with a range of 14.1–15.6 years of education for high SES versus 10.5–12.7 for low SES.
In other words, the socio-economic background and parental educational levels of bilingual
children were highly related and even overlapping factors in the Hispanic language
community. At the same time, it may be misleading to treat these factors as indistinguishable
from one another for some immigrant communities, as, for example, the Russian-Jewish
immigration in Israel, which is the focus of the present study.
18 M. Schwartz et al.

Despite obvious commonalities among factors affecting the lexical knowledge of the
children of immigrants, it is important to stress that the magnitude and strength of these
factors tend to vary from one immigrant population to another. In most situations, the
extent of knowledge of the host country’s language is likely to be related to a complex inter-
action of many socio-cultural and linguistic variables reflecting the unique context of each
immigrant population (Edwards, 1992). It is important, therefore, to examine each ethno-
linguistic group individually. In this context, focusing on the last wave of Russian-Jewish
immigration from the former Soviet Union (FSU) to Israel provides a unique and intriguing
case study of how socio-cultural and linguistic distinctiveness can influence L2 mastery.
Until now, the quantitative research on Hebrew L2 knowledge among the Russian-Jewish
community has focused mainly on adult and adolescent immigrants (Donitsa-Schmidt,
1999; Olshtain & Kotik, 2000). No empirical data exist on the socio-linguistic determinants
of L2 vocabulary mastery among the second generation. The present study attempts to
begin filling this void.

Characteristics of the last wave of Russian-Jewish immigration in Israel

Israel is a country populated largely by successive waves of immigration. The 1990s were
marked by a massive wave of immigration from the FSU. According to government sources,
over 835,000 immigrants, approximately one-sixth of the total population of Israel, arrived
in the country between 1989 and 1999 (Yelenevskaya & Fialkova, 2003). The huge influx of
newcomers has resulted in a consolidated community structure at both the formal (e.g.
political) and informal levels (Leshem & Lissak, 1999). Demographically, a relatively
high concentration of the immigrant population in certain neighborhoods provides a
Russian-speaking socio-linguistic milieu (The Central Bureau of Statistics, 2005).
The large scale of this immigration distinguishes it from earlier waves and explains the
tendency of these immigrants to retain their language of origin, Russian. The Russian
language has now attained the status of Israel’s third language (Olstein, 1995), after
Hebrew and English. A state-sponsored Russian radio network and TV channel, and
some 50 Russian newspapers and magazines attest to the significance of the language. In
addition, most immigrants strongly assert their original cultural identity and appreciation
of Russian culture. It should be stressed, however, that up into the 50s age group, these
immigrants exhibit a relatively fast rate of Hebrew (L2) acquisition, unlike immigrants
from the USA and Western Europe. In this, they are motivated by occupational needs
and an interest in the host country’s social life (Kotik & Olshtain, 1997).
This immigration was also characterised by a high educational level, representing an
array of academic and white-collar professions. Approximately 60% of FSU immigrants
in the workforce have ‘academic’ professions (requiring a college degree), compared
with 30% of the veteran population (Leshem & Lissak, 1999). Owing to their high level
of education and professional qualifications, as well as to their substantial cultural
resources, the immigrants believe that they make a meaningful contribution to Israeli
society and to the country’s economic progress (Ben-Rafael, Olshtain, & Geijst, 1997).
At the same time, a large portion of this highly educated workforce has not been formally
certified to practice in their profession and has been forced to seek alternative employment.
Even immigrants proficient in Hebrew (L2), after receiving formal certification to practice
their professions, are not guaranteed appropriate employment because of the large supply of
highly skilled professionals among them (Menahem & Gajst, 2000). Thus, one of the dis-
tinguishing features of this wave of immigration is the discrepancy between the relatively
low SES of the community and its rather high educational level. Therefore, the educational
 Language, Culture and Curriculum 19

level of immigrants from the FSU may affect their children’s L2 proficiency more than their
SES, as the parents’ income and level of education appear to be disconnected. The present
research enables us to examine more closely the weight of parental educational level in the
acquisition of L2 lexical knowledge among second generation immigrants.
To summarise, the present study is guided by the question of how the socio-linguistic
factors reported above are linked to Hebrew L2 lexical knowledge among second generation
children of Russian-Jewish immigrants in Israel. The independent variables included in the
research are (1) parents’ background (the length of parents’ residence in Israel, socio-
economic index (SEI) of the school, parental education level, parental education in Israel);
(2) language input (parent-child language choice, and parental Hebrew (L2) proficiency);
and (3) children’s social milieu (percent of Russian-speaking class mates and percent of
Russian-speaking friends). The dependent variable is Hebrew L2 lexical knowledge.

Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 70 RHS children (34 boys and 36 girls) and their parents. The chil-
dren’s ages ranged from six years 11 months to seven years five months with a mean age of
seven years two months. The parents were between 30 and 50 years of age, and had one to
three children. Children were selected from 12 elementary schools (24 classrooms) situated
in the northern region of Israel, including the city of Haifa and its neighbouring municipal
councils, where the population is predominantly of middle-low SES. The sample was part
of a large-scale research project aimed at investigating determinants of success in L1/L2
vocabulary mastery. All participants attended kindergartens and schools in which
Hebrew (L2) was the language of formal instruction and communication.
Parental consent of 70% of the target student population in the selected classes was
obtained by communicating directly with RHS parents during parent – teacher conferences
at the beginning of the school year. Seventy bilingual children were selected on the basis of
the following inclusion criteria: (1) speaking Russian as the first and dominant language at
home; (2) Israeli-born (n ¼ 65) or immigrated to Israel at least five years before the start of
schooling, that is, before the age of 2 years (n ¼ 5) (children in Israel generally begin
school at age 6); (3) having acquired basic reading skills in Hebrew and being free from
severe hearing, visual, or neurological impairments. Ten of the families that consented to
participate in the study reported single parent status.

Design
Measures
SEI of the schools. Because information concerning parental SES was not available, we
decided to collect data on the SEI of each school involved in the study. This index is cal-
culated based on the parents’ reports regarding their income and occupation and on a
ranking of the families’ residential area, but not on their educational level. This index
may therefore be considered as an equivalent of the SES of the families participating in
the study. The SEI of schools in Israel is measured on a 10-point scale ranging from 1 to
10, with higher scores indicating lower SES. In the present study, the SEI for the schools
ranged from 4.25 to 7.40 (M ¼ 5.3; SD ¼ 0.93).

Parents’ questionnaire (Moin, Schwartz, Kozminsky, & Leikin, 2006). The questionnaire
was administered in Russian (L1). It was based in part on an existing questionnaire
20 M. Schwartz et al.

(Donitsa-Schmidt, 1999) and in part it was developed specifically for the present study. The
questionnaire took 20 min to complete and included two parts.

(1) Parents’ background

Several items of information about the year of immigration, marital status, edu-
cational level of both parents, professions of both parents, schooling in Israel,
number of close friends, and number of Russian-speaking friends.
(2) Language input: parental language choice and Hebrew (L2) proficiency
Parents were asked to state their language of choice: only Russian (1), only Hebrew
(2), or both Russian and Hebrew (3), with spouse, parents, and offspring and in
various leisure time situations that necessitate the use of language (e.g. reading
books for pleasure, reading newspapers, listening to radio programmes, and watch-
ing TV).
In addition, parents were asked to rate their language proficiency in Hebrew
using ‘can-do’ items in different skills (speaking, comprehending, writing, and
reading), in both formal and informal situations (e.g. reading a book versus
reading signs). There were eight items for each language. Parents indicated their
ability to perform these skills on a scale ranging from ‘no ability at all’ (1) to
‘perform very well’ (5). Cronbach’s a reliabilities resulted in high coefficients
for Hebrew: a ¼ .95. On self-assessment in Russian, all parents reported the
highest score (5), indicating excellent L1 proficiency. To increase statistical
power and for the purpose of data reduction, we constructed a composite
measure of parents’ Hebrew language proficiency (M ¼ 4.1; SD ¼ 0.81) based
on principal component analysis. The composite score was created by extracting
the first principal component from the set of eight Hebrew proficiency variables.
The first principal component accounted for a majority of the variance in this set
(68%), with similar weights for each of the eight variables (0.851, 0.850, 0.753,
0.783, 0.860, 0.879, 0.714, and 0.904, respectively).
We also collected data concerning children’s exposure to literacy in Russian
and Hebrew at home. Parents were asked about the presence of children’s literature
at home in the target languages and whether they used to read to the child in
Russian only, in Hebrew only, or in both Russian and Hebrew.
Children’s questionnaire (Moin et al., 2006). The questionnaire was developed specifically
for the present study. The questionnaire took 10 min to complete and included two parts.

(1) Children’s social milieu

Several items of information about the number and age of siblings, number of close
friends, and number of Russian-speaking friends.
In addition, we obtained information on the percent of RHS classmates reported
by class teachers and school authorities.
(2) Children’s language choice
Nine items of information about the children’s language choice and use: Russian
only (1), Hebrew only (2), or both Russian and Hebrew (3), with father, mother,
grandparents, and siblings in various leisure time situations that necessitate the
use of language (e.g. reading books for pleasure, listening to books read by care-
givers, and watching TV).
Hebrew lexical knowledge. We present here a composite measure of Hebrew lexical knowl-
edge created by extracting the first principal component from a set of six Hebrew lexical
 Language, Culture and Curriculum 21

knowledge measures (semantic categories, word descriptions, antonyms, word association,

and receptive vocabulary). The first component accounted for a majority of the variance in
this set (54%), with similar weights for each of the individual variables (0.812, 0.555,
0.612, 0.780, 0.756, and 0.791). Based on the results of the principal component analysis,
the measure based on word description without stimulus questions was not included in the
composite of Hebrew linguistic knowledge. The following tests were used to produce the
composite measure of Hebrew lexical knowledge.

(1) Semantic categories knowledge (adopted from Rom & Moreg, 2001). Participants
were asked to name three items for each of 10 semantic categories (e.g. musical
instruments, electric tools). Cronbach’s a was 0.77.
(2) Antonym knowledge (Schwartz, Kozminsky, & Leikin, 2006). Children were
shown 18 pairs of pictures. Each pair represented opposing features of the same
object (e.g. a picture of a clean floor and one of a dirty floor). Children were
asked to name the opposite feature of the object. Cronbach’s a was 0.76.
(3) Word description (adopted from Rom & Moreg, 2001). Children were given one of
five stimulus words (watermelon, telephone, butterfly, bicycle, and bag) and asked
to give as many dimensions of meaning as they could think of by answering
stimulus questions related to the different aspects of meaning. Cronbach’s a was
0.67.
(4) Oral cloze (Schwartz et al., 2006). This task was developed to estimate the
children’s use of specific Hebrew verbs. Fourteen short phrases were read to the
children, who were asked to provide the missing verb in each sentence. For
instance, Safta _____ [markiva] mishkafaim, Grandmother _____ [wears]
glasses. The maximum score for the task was 42. Cronbach’s a was 0.67.
(5) Word association task (Schwartz et al., 2006). In this semantic association task,
children were given 45 s to name as many words as they could think of related
to a stimulus word. Two stimulus words were presented orally: the first word,
picnic, was chosen as a relatively culture-unbiased word. The second word,
Purim (the Jewish holiday), was selected as a culture-specific word. The number
of correct associations mentioned for each stimulus word was scored.
(6) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Hebrew version: Nevo, 1979; adapted from Dunn,
1965). The test asked children to indicate which of the four pictures matched a spoken
word.

Procedure
The study was carried out in the first two months of the school year. The children’s tasks and
questionnaire were completed individually in two separate sessions lasting about 40 min
each. The questionnaires for parents were completed at the parent – teacher meetings.

Results
Parents’ background
Table 1 presents the parents’ background data. The SEI of the children’s schools ranged from
4.25 to 7.40, indicating a middle-low range. At the same time, the level of education reported
by parents was relatively high (M ¼ 14.0; SD ¼ 1.53, in years). All parents had at least a
high school diploma (10 years of school in the FSU, where compulsory education is from
age 7 to 17. Forty-three percent of the women and 47% of the men had earned a university
degree (at least 5 years post-secondary education in the FSU). The correlation between
22 M. Schwartz et al.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and range of parental background measures.

Variables Mean (SD) Range
SEI of the school 5.3 (0.93) 4.25–7.40
Length of parents’ residence in Israel (in years) 11.6 (3.93) 5–17
Mothers’ education (in years) 14.0 (1.67) 10–18
Fathers’ education (in years) 14.0 (1.85) 10–20
Parental education (in years) 14.0 (1.53) 10–20

maternal and paternal education was r ¼ 0.41, p , 0.01. The average score of the mother’s
and the father’s education served as a measure of parental education. For single parents, it
was considered as the average score.
Note that 60% of the parents were educated primarily in Israel. Sixty-nine percent par-
ticipated in 1-year professional courses and 31% received conventional higher education.
The correlation between parental educational level and their educational experience in
Israel was reliable but rather low (r ¼ 0.26, p , 0.05). Therefore, we treated the parental
educational level and their educational experience in Israel as two separate and independent
variables.
Table 1 also shows that the families’ residence in Israel was relatively long, averaging
11.6 years.

Language input
The parents’ questionnaire shows that Russian was the primary language used by parents
with their spouses (72%), with their parents (100%), and when reading for pleasure (82%).
At the same time, we found a strong tendency to permit a mixture of L1 and L2 in com-
munication with the children. More specifically, 69% of the parents noted that using
Hebrew with the children was a choice conditioned mainly by linguistic circumstances,
when it was impossible to find the right word or expression in Russian. As a rule,
however, parents reported placing emphasis on maintaining L1.
Language choice in other personal domains (reading newspapers, listening to radio, and
watching TV) tended to include both Russian and Hebrew. These findings are inconsistent
with data reported by Ben-Rafael et al. (1997). Their research was conducted in 1992, using
a large-scale sample of immigrants from the FSU, and found that 2 years after immigration,
Russian was the predominant language in all areas presented above. This discrepancy may
be attributed to the fact that (1) in our study the immigrants have resided in Israel for at least
5 years and (2) they showed a greater command of Hebrew and consequently greater inter-
est in acquiring the culture of the host society. It should be noted, however, that 71% of the
parents reported being part of a Russian-only-speaking social environment.
In sum, the data showed that Russian remained the language of choice for family
communication and social interaction and that Hebrew is widely used for integration into
mainstream society.
Table 2 contains the descriptive statistics of parental Hebrew proficiency. As shown in
Table 2, parents reported a relatively high level of Hebrew language proficiency (M ¼ 4.1;
SD ¼ 0.81) and clearly indicated weaker ability in written domains (i.e. writing a formal
letter, reading a book). This pattern of findings is consistent with the parents’ self-report
on rather low ability reading literature in Hebrew (23%) and low inclination to choose
Hebrew for pleasure reading (18%). At the same line, only 34% of the parents reported
reading to their children in both languages.
 Language, Culture and Curriculum 23

Table 2. Means and SD of parental Hebrew

language proficiency in raw scores (range 1– 5).
Variables Mean SD
Write a formal letter 3.4 1.23
Fill a bank form 4.3 1.23
Chat with a friend 4.2 1.01
Understand simple conversation 4.7 0.57
Understand news on the radio 4.2 0.98
Read a book 3.3 1.26
Read signs 4.7 0.80
Talk on the phone 4.3 0.85

The children also reported frequent use of Russian with their parents (59% with fathers,
56% with mothers, 96% with grandparents), but some were more likely to communicate
with their parents in Hebrew only (9% with fathers and 11% with mothers). As expected,
the children commonly used Hebrew with their siblings (43%) and with Russian-speaking
friends (70%).

Children’s social milieu

The percent of Russian-speaking classmates ranged from 4% to 79% (M ¼ 34.5;
SD ¼ 17.39). We also found a strong tendency for choosing Russian-speaking friends
(M ¼ 69,0; SD ¼ 33.47). Forty percent stated that they had only Russian-speaking
friends, whereas only 6% reported having a Hebrew-only-speaking milieu.

Correlations between the independent variables and the children’s

Hebrew lexical knowledge
We performed a series of correlation analyses to investigate the relation between the
children’s lexical knowledge in L2 and the independent factors that may be connected
with it (Table 3).
Not surprisingly, significant positive relationships were found between the children’s
lexical knowledge in L2 and parental length of residence in the host country, education
level, and education in Israel (r ¼ 0.35, p , 0.01; r ¼ 0.44, p , 0.01; r ¼ 0.37,
p , 0.01). At the same time, the correlation analysis showed a rather weak and non-signifi-
cant association between the SEI of the school, the parents’ linguistic input, and the chil-
dren’s social milieu variables on the one hand and the children’s Hebrew lexical
knowledge on the other.
Although the children’s L2 lexical knowledge and their parents’ L2 proficiency are not
correlated, they are strongly related to the same factors: the length of residence in Israel,
parents’ educational level, and parents’ educational experience in Israel. Correlation analy-
sis also revealed a large coherence between the measures of linguistic input (parent – child
language choice and parental Hebrew (L2) proficiency). It seems, therefore, that in families
that permitted the co-existence of both languages in communication with the children the
reported level of Hebrew mastery was higher than in the families that preferred to use
mainly Russian. A negative correlation was also found between parental Hebrew (L2)
proficiency and the SEI of the school, but it was a weak one (r ¼ 0.25, p , 0.05).
Finally, the SEI of the school was related considerably to the percent of Russian-speaking
24 M. Schwartz et al.

Table 3. Correlations between independent variables and children’s Hebrew lexical knowledge.
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. SEI of the school 1
2. Length of parents’ 20.11 1
residence in Israel
3. Parental education 20.19 0.32

1
4. Parental education in 20.01 0.26
0.26
1
Israel
5. Parent– child 20.22 0.22 0.12 0.18 1
language choice
6. Parental Hebrew 20.25
0.40

0.44

0.53

0.53 1
(L2) proficiency
7. Percent of Russian- 0.61

20.14 0.02 0.09 20.20 20.10 1
speaking classmates
8. Percent of Russian- 0.23 20.17 20.05 20.25 20.21 20.16 0.27
1
speaking friends
9. Children’s Hebrew 20.18 0.35

0.44

0.37

0.03 0.18 20.05 0.03 1
lexical knowledge


p , 0.05.



p , 0.01.

students (r ¼ 0.61; p , 0.01). These data are consistent with the sociological profile of
Russian-Jewish immigration in Israel presented by Menahem and Gajst (2000), stressing
the mismatch between the relatively low SES of the community and its relatively high
educational level.

Multiple regression analysis

Next, we performed a multiple regression analysis (Table 4). Hebrew lexical knowledge
was entered as a dependent variable and parental background, language input, and the chil-
dren’s social milieu were entered simultaneously as explanatory variables.
As shown in Table 4, the explanatory variables accounted for a considerable amount of
the variance in the children’s Hebrew lexical knowledge (F(8, 61) ¼ 4.12, p , 0.01,
R2 ¼ 0.38). Three variables that substantially contributed to the bilinguals’ L2 lexical
competence were, in order of importance, parents’ educational level, parents’ education

Table 4. Summary of multiple regression analysis for variables contributing

to the children’s Hebrew lexical knowledge.
Variable B SE B b
R2 ¼ 0.38
SEI of the school 20.15 0.12 20.19
Length of parents’ residence in Israel 0.22 0.11 0.25

Parental education 0.38 0.12 0.43


Parental education in Israel 0.32 0.12 0.33

Parent –child language choice 0.00 0.12 0.00
Parental Hebrew (L2) proficiency 20.27 0.14 20.32
Percent of Russian-speaking classmates 0.00 0.12 0.00
Percent of Russian-speaking friends 0.18 0.11 0.19


p , 0.05.



p , 0.001.
 Language, Culture and Curriculum 25

in Israel, and the length of residence in Israel. Consistent with the correlation results,
the relative contribution of the SEI of the school, parent – child language choice, parental
Hebrew (L2) proficiency, and children’s social milieu to the dependent variable was not
significant.

Discussion
An important inspiration for the present research project was the notion that in the case of
Russian-Jewish immigration in Israel there may be a significant interaction between
parental educational level and their children’s progress in Hebrew L2 lexical knowledge.
The study produced several important findings. First, similar to previous data reported
by Pearson (2006), our findings confirmed that parental education in the host country
(even if limited to a brief professional course) and the length of residence can advance
the second generation’s ability to progress in L2 lexical skills.
At the same time, the present study provided unequivocal evidence of the critical role
that the parents’ educational level acquired in the country of origin plays in their children’s
lexical mastery of L2. This suggests that young Russian-speaking bilinguals of even
middle-low SES can enter a non-additive Hebrew educational context at an advantage
and profit from their parents’ cultural support. More specifically, immigrant families in
which parents have a higher level of education also demonstrate a higher level of L2 pro-
ficiency, are likely to pay more attention to their children’s academic progress, have more
books to read at home in both languages, and act to further their children’s cognitive and
linguistic development. This interpretation is supported by the strong correlation between
the parents’ educational level and their self-reported L2 proficiency and by the significant
connections between parents’ education and the number of children’s books in Hebrew that
are present in the home (r ¼ 0.36, p , 0.05). The results underscore the important factor
of the immigrants’ educational level, which can account for the variance in children’s L2
proficiency independently of their SE characteristics, and in our case in contrast to them.
Another noteworthy result is that no significant interaction has been found between the
Russian-speaking peer environment of bilingual children and their L2 lexical knowledge.
We expected the L2 vocabulary mastery of bilingual children to be influenced by limited
level of access to native Hebrew-speaking peers (see also Gathercole, 2002; Wong Fillmore,
1982). However, the results suggest that even in classrooms in which the percentage of
Russian-speaking children is lowest (4%), the children had 100% Russian-speaking
friends. This implies that young bilinguals tend to choose a Russian-speaking socio-linguistic
milieu, which may be imposed by parental preferences. Moreover, a relatively high concen-
tration of the immigrant population from FSU in certain neighborhoods (The Central
Bureau of Statistics, 2005), creates a demographically Russian-speaking socio-linguistic
milieu. This reasoning suggests that bilingual children have limited social interactions
with native Hebrew-speaking peers beyond shared school time, and therefore are not
fully integrated in the L2 environment to enable them to achieve native competence in
Hebrew (see also Genesee, 1987; Lambert & Turker, 1972; Oller & Eilers, 2002). Although
most of the children stated that Hebrew was the main language of their social interactions
with RHS friends, we can assume that this non-native pattern of language contact is not
fruitful for L2 vocabulary enrichment. Furthermore, the parents’ social environment also
appears to consist of predominantly Russian-speaking friends, which does not contribute
substantially to variance in the children’s L2 lexical command.
No significant correlation was found between the reported Hebrew proficiency of the
parents and their children’s Hebrew lexical knowledge. The absence of this interaction
26 M. Schwartz et al.

may be the result of problems inherent in the validity of the parents’ self-report. The
immigrants reported a relatively high self-perception of basic Hebrew communication
skills and lower but considerable L2 literacy skills. Nevertheless, we have reason to ques-
tion the parents’ self-assessment of L2 proficiency and their ability to provide reliable and
valid data regarding the objective state of their L2 lexical knowledge. Further research is
needed to obtain information about the quality of L2 linguistic input at home, ensuring
adequate data collection settings (e.g. collection of spontaneous natural speech data, ethno-
graphic observations, and direct assessment of lexical richness) (Mackey & Gass, 2005).
The data provide unambiguous evidence that both the parents’ self-reported L2 proficiency,
and the children’s L2 lexical knowledge are strongly related to the family’s educational
level.
Finally, the findings concerning the non-significant role of the parent – child language
choice in explaining the variance in children’s Hebrew lexical knowledge can be attributed
to the fact that even in families that reported co-existence of both languages, Russian
remains the primary language for transmitting traditions and cultural values to the next
generation. At the same time, the use of Hebrew in parent – child communication may be
characterised as functional and likely occasional. The extent to which these language
patterns may change in the course of the children’s education within a non-additive L2
environment merits further longitudinal study.
In sum, the present study has shown that variability in RHS children’s L2 lexical
knowledge can be understood, to some extent, by three underlying background factors:
parents’ educational level, parents’ educational experience in the host country, and the
length of the family’s residence in the host country. No single study can address all the
issues related to the role of socio-linguistic conditions in bilingual children’s L2 lexical
progress, but the present research adds important knowledge about the relationship
between the immigrants’ educational level and their children progress in L2 vocabulary.
Additionally, the study sheds new light on the contribution of native speaking peers’ in
the classroom to the L2 input of non-native speakers, which may be weakened by a
predominantly L1-speaking environment outside the classroom. Our findings underscore
the importance of analysing the unique socio-cultural characteristics of the immigrant
community in approaching the educational challenges of second-generation children.

References
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Ben-Rafael, E., Olshtain, E., & Geijst, I. (1997). Identity and language: The social insertion of Soviet
Jews in Israel. In N. Levin-Epstein, Y. Ro’i, & P. Ritterband (Eds.), Russian Jews on three
continents: Migration and resettlement (pp. 364–388). London: Frank Cass.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biemiller, A. (2005). Addressing developmental patterns in vocabulary: Implications for choosing
words for primary grade vocabulary instruction. In E.H. Hiebert & M. Kamil (Eds.), Bringing
scientific research to practice: Vocabulary (pp. 223–242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Central Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Statistical Abstract of Israel No. 56, Retrieved March 28, 2006,
from http://wwwl.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnatonenew_site.htm
Cobo-Lewis, A.B., Pearson, B.Z., Eilers, R.E., & Umbel, V.C. (2002). Effects of bilingualism and
bilingual education on oral and written Spanish skills: A multifactor study of standardized test
outcomes. In D.K. Oller & R.E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children
(pp. 98–117). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
De Houwer, A. (1995). Bilingual language acquisition. In P. Fletcher & B. McWhinney (Eds.), The
handbook of child language (pp. 219–250). Oxford: Blackwell.
 Language, Culture and Curriculum 27

De Houwer, A. (1999). Environmental factors in early bilingual development: The role of parental
beliefs and attitudes. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Bilingualism and migration
(pp. 75–96). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Donitsa-Schmidt, S. (1999). Language maintenance or shift – determinants of language choice
among Soviet immigrants in Israel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Toronto: University of
Toronto.
Dunn, L.M. (1965). Peabody picture vocabulary test. Minnesota: American Guidance Service.
Edwards, J. (1992). Sociopolitical aspects of language maintenance and loss: Towards a typology of
minority language situations. In W. Fase, K. Jaspaert, & S. Kroon (Eds.), Maintenance and loss of
minority languages (pp. 37–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gathercole, V.C.M. (2002). Monolingual and bilingual acquisition: Learning different treatments of
that-trace phenomena in English and Spanish. In D.K. Oller & R.E. Eilers (Eds.), Language
and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 220–254). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Kosmin, B.A. (1990). The class of 1979: The ‘Acculturation’ of Jewish immigrants from the Soviet
Union (Occasional Papers 5). New York: City University of New York, Graduate Center,
North American Jewish Data Bank.
Kotik, B., & Olshtain, E. (1997). Language proficiency and language preferences in Russian-speaking
and English-speaking new immigrants (in Hebrew). Hed Ha’Ulpan, 74, 39–42.
Lambert, W.E. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In A. Wolfgang
(Ed.), Education of immigrant students. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Lambert, W.E., & Turker, G.R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St Lambert experiment.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Leshem, E., & Lissak, M. (1999). Development and consolidation of the Russian community in Israel.
In S. Weil (Ed.), Roots and routes: Ethnicity and migration in global perspective (pp. 135–171).
Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S.M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Menahem, G., & Gajst, I. (2000). Language and occupation among Soviet immigrants to Israel in the
1990s. In E. Olshtain & G. Horenczyk (Eds.), Language, identity and immigration (pp. 301–319).
Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University.
Moin, V., Schwartz, M., Kozminsky, E., & Leikin, M. (2006). Sheilon lehorim du-lishorüm [Parents’
questionnaire] (in Hebrew). Unpublished questionnaire, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva.
Nevo, B. (1979). Peabody picture vocabulary test [Hebrew edition of Dunn’s peabody picture voca-
bulary test]. Haifa: University of Haifa.
Oller, D.K., & Eilers, R.E. (Eds.). (2002). An integrated approach to evaluating effects of bilingualism
in Miami school children: The study design. Language and literacy in bilingual children
(pp. 22–40). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Oller, D.K., & Pearson, B.Z. (2002). Assessing the effects of bilingualism: A background. In
D.K. Oller & R.E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 3–21).
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Olshtain, E., & Kotik, B. (2000). The development of bilingualism in an immigrant commu-
nity. In E. Olshtein & G. Hornczyk (Eds.), Language, identity, and immigration
(pp. 210–217). Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University.
Olstein, A. (1995). Gathering of the exiles? The impact of the 1990s’ wave of immigration on central
areas of Israeli life (in Hebrew), Paper presented at a conference on the Israel Sociological
Society Immigrant Absorption Section, Tel-Aviv University.
Pearson, B.Z. (2006, May). Social factors in childhood bilingualism (C-BI) in the US. Paper presented
at the conference on Language Acquisition and Bilingualism, Toronto, Canada.
Rom, A., & Moreg, L. (2001). Maase [Assessment of oral language processing] (in Hebrew).
Tel-Aviv: Kibbutzim College of Education.
Schwartz, M. (2008). Exploring the relationship between family language policy and heritage
language knowledge among second generation of Russian-Jewish immigrants in Israel.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29(5), 400–418.
Schwartz, M., Kozminsky, E., & Leikin, M. (2006). Language tests (in Hebrew). Beer-Sheva:
Ben-Gurion University, Unpublished tests.
28 M. Schwartz et al.

Schwartz, M., Kozminsky, E., & Leikin, M. (2008). Towards a better understanding of first language
vocabulary knowledge: The case of second-generation Russian-Jewish immigrants in Israel.
Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education: An International Journal.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1982). Instructional language as linguistic input: Second language learning in
classrooms. In L. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom. New York: Academic Press.
Yelenevskaya, M.N., & Fialkova, L. (2003). From ‘muteness’ to eloquence: Immigrant’ narratives
about languages. Language Awareness, 12(1), 30–48.