Preserving Heritage Language in Turkish Families in the USA

Abstract

A dearth of research concerning Turkish immigrant families in the United States exists, prompting this study’s focus. This research aims to illuminate the influence of parental language attitudes among Turkish immigrants on their motivation to foster the preservation of their heritage language (HL) in their children, alongside an exploration of the strategies employed for HL retention. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 parents (16 mothers and 4 fathers), with each interview spanning 15–20 min. The interviews, conducted individually by the primary author in Turkish and later translated into English, unveiled a spectrum of parental language attitudes, impacting their motivation to uphold HL. Variances in motivation were observed, intertwined with factors such as home and community environments, parental acculturation experiences, perceptions regarding the relationship between culture and language, and the perceived advantages of bilingualism for children’s cognitive development and future prospects. Despite differing motivations, all parents expressed a desire to preserve HL, prompting the deployment of diverse Heritage Language Management Strategies (HLMS). This study significantly contributes to the understanding of how parental attitudes shape HL preservation efforts within families, offering insights crucial to the field of HL and family language policy, thereby highlighting implications for practice and further research.

1. Introduction

The United States (U.S.) is becoming increasingly diverse, partially due to bilingual immigrants (Hoff 2013). The community language brought by minority groups, including immigrants, to a host country within multilingual settings is considered a heritage language (HL) (Bayram and Wright 2016). Speakers of HLs present a particular case of bilingualism because HLs are acquired by children “due to a close connection to family members” (Melo-Pfeifer 2015, p. 27). Hence, the bilinguals’ mother tongue is a minority language in a majority language context (Bayram and Wright 2016).

Preserving HL is often a crucial part of maintaining one’s cultural identity, especially among immigrants. However, this task is challenging for immigrant parents. They must confront the family language loss experienced by their children (Fillmore 2000). Immigrant families have to actively manage at least two languages throughout their immigration and acculturation experiences, depending on the family structure (Halsted 2013). Most studies on bilingualism in early childhood language development indicate that HL acquisition tends to be interrupted once children start attending formal school in their host country (Halsted 2015; Place and Hoff 2011). Initially, HL speakers may be more proficient in their first language during early childhood (Ertanir et al. 2018). However, the first language can become underdeveloped as the second language, the majority language, starts to dominate. Consequently, children of immigrants are expected to develop skills to switch between two languages (Polinsky and Kagan 2007).

This research is particularly relevant for Turkish American families, given their distinct cultural and linguistic heritage. For these families, preserving the Turkish language serves not only as a connection to cultural identity but also as a pathway to successful integration into American society. This study delves into the specific experiences and strategies of Turkish American families, illuminating the broader implications of bilingualism and cultural preservation in immigrant communities. It contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the immigrant experience in the U.S. The current study employs a qualitative approach to explore these complex dynamics, recognizing that qualitative methods are particularly adept at capturing the depth, richness, and variety of experiences within Turkish American families that might be overlooked in a quantitative framework.

1.1. Immigrants’ Language Attitudes and HL Preservation Strategies

Immigrant parents exhibit diverse and dynamic preferences regarding heritage language (HL) preservation. They may strive to maintain their HL within their new societal environment in the U.S. (Bayram and Wright 2016; Curdt-Christiansen 2009). Conversely, some immigrant families opt to adopt the majority language within their households for various reasons, including language policies, social pressures, or economic benefits (Borland 2006; Fitzgerald 1993). Additionally, factors such as children’s academic achievement in schools and parents’ educational levels can influence parents’ preference for the majority language in home settings (Nesteruk 2010). The attitudes and/or language ideologies exhibited by parents are referred to as language attitudes, defined as “a construct underlying the feelings people have about their language or others’ languages” (Cherciov 2013, p. 716). Language attitudes can foster a “supportive home environment” that enhances language acquisition in both languages, especially HL (Park 2013, p. 39). Therefore, immigrant parents raising bilingual children in the U.S. need to implement a “family language policy” (Ghimenton 2015, p. 117; Schwartz and Moin 2012, p. 35). Through family language policy, immigrant parents establish rules and norms governing the language(s) in which their children are raised and how they will acquire proficiency in the dominant languages of the host society (MacCormac and MacCormac 2021). Parents also employ strategies that contribute to HL proficiency within immigrant households, playing a crucial role in family relations (Park and Sarkar 2007; Pearson 2007). These strategies may include organizing home literacy programs, taking children to cultural centers, and visiting the home country, thereby exposing children to their HL through multiple speakers in various environments (Place and Hoff 2011). When parents strongly advocate for and practice heritage language maintenance, their children demonstrate greater agency in continuing the use and learning of their heritage language (Shen and Jiang 2023). Heritage speakers often report their most frequent and highest use of the heritage language with their parents and older relatives, highlighting the critical role of parents in heritage language development (Montrul 2016). In immigrant households, language maintenance activities can be both overt and covert and may include instances when children serve as linguistic and cultural brokers for their parents (Velázquez 2014). Furthermore, intertwined with language brokering, children in immigrant families often engage in cultural brokering, navigating two sets of cultural norms to connect their families with local information and resources (Nesteruk 2021).

The effort immigrant parents put into preserving HL depends on various factors, such as the global number of speakers of a particular language. Since English is widely spoken globally, it is considered prestigious (Halsted 2013; Leeman and Serafini 2016). Conversely, HLs are typically spoken by smaller communities, which may lead to a perception of lesser prestige, potentially demotivating immigrant children from maintaining these languages (Halsted 2013). The lack of social contexts and values can influence how children of immigrants emotionally connect with their spoken language. Immigrant parents are cognizant of the potential social and cognitive benefits of preserving HL for maintaining their cultural identity. Social benefits include opening doors in the job market, social networking, community relations, and heritage descent bonding (e.g., A. De Houwer 2009). Cognitive benefits, extensively documented by bilingual researchers, include improved executive functioning at an early age, enhanced recognition memory among older bilinguals, delayed cognitive function decline due to aging, and delayed onset of Alzheimer’s disease (Bialystok 2010; Bialystok et al. 2014; Barac and Bialystok 2012; Barac et al. 2014; Kroll and Bialystok 2013).

The context in which education occurs plays a crucial role in maintaining HL (Bialystok 2018). A host country’s attitude toward preserving HL can provide integrative external support to immigrant families. Children of immigrant parents usually do not receive formal education in their HL; hence, their families provide internal support as a primary socialization unit (Park 2013; A. De Houwer 2009; Fitzgerald 1993). Furthermore, a harmonious bilingual development process can enhance family well-being in relation to preserving HL in immigrant contexts (A. De Houwer 2015). Strategies that motivate or demotivate parents in preserving HL depend on positive experiences with bilingualism (J. De Houwer 2006), which also influence language attitudes and practices among immigrant parents. The U.S. context, which surprisingly lags behind other countries in providing bilingual environments for immigrant populations (Halsted 2015), does not facilitate a positive bilingual development process for these families. While multilingualism was widely accepted in the 19th century (Fitzgerald 1993; Pavlenko 2002), the U.S. gradually became less supportive of HLs after the 1920s. Immigrant children started losing their HL, partly due to insufficient environmental support for families to teach their HL to their children (Leeman and Serafini 2016; Barac and Bialystok 2012). By the third generation, immigrant children tend to shift to English dominance or monolingualism (Hoff 2018).

In discussing the theoretical and practical issue of cross-linguistic value, particularly in the context of Turkish immigrant families and heritage language preservation in the U.S., it is crucial to consider the factors influencing the preservation or loss of HLs (Gupta 2020). Factors such as personal conviction and commitment, ethnic nationalism, and the accessibility of heritage language schools in neighborhoods are pivotal in HL maintenance. Additionally, parents’ perspectives on maintaining the native language and practical ways to preserve cultural heritage are significant for understanding the cross-linguistic values in immigrant families (Lekatompessy 2021). Gupta’s (2020) study provides insights into Indian parents’ perspectives on maintaining HL in metropolitan settings, offering a valuable understanding of the practical challenges and strategies for HL preservation. Similarly, Sehlaoui and Mousa’s (2016) research on parents’ perceptions of heritage languages in the Midwest highlights the qualitative data analysis collected from parents’ perspectives towards HL, providing theoretical insights into the value attributed to heritage languages within immigrant families. Understanding the voices and perceptions of parents is crucial for comprehending the theoretical and practical significance of heritage language preservation in immigrant communities.

In the exploration of theoretical and practical aspects concerning the cross-linguistic value, especially within the context of Turkish immigrant families and the preservation of heritage language in the U.S., it is imperative to incorporate insights from cross-linguistic studies. Understanding the factors influencing the preservation or loss of heritage language (HL) is essential (Gupta 2020). Factors such as personal conviction, commitment, ethnic nationalism, and the accessibility of heritage language schools are pivotal in HL maintenance (Gupta 2020). The perspectives of parents on maintaining the native language and practical strategies for preserving cultural heritage contribute significantly to understanding cross-linguistic value in immigrant families (Lekatompessy 2021). This study aims to address the apparent gap in the understanding of Turkish immigrant families’ experiences in the U.S. by exploring how their unique cultural practices impact the upbringing of bilingual children.

1.2. Turkish Immigrant Families In and Outside of the U.S.

Several studies have focused on Turkish immigrant families’ HL transmission experiences in and outside of the U.S. For instance, Bohnacker’s (2022) article, “Turkish Mother Tongue Instruction in Sweden”, provides an analysis of the current status of Turkish mother tongue instruction (MTI) in Sweden. This study examines the context of Swedish language policy and discusses the practical implementation of Turkish MTI by municipalities in Sweden. It highlights discrepancies between the official language policy and its actual application, making it highly relevant to the topic of interest by offering insights into the status and implementation of Turkish MTI in Sweden.

Additionally, K. Yagmur (2016) delved into the intergenerational language use and acculturation of Turkish speakers in these four immigration contexts, shedding light on the complexities of language preference, attitudes, and maintenance among Turkish immigrants and their descendants (K. Yagmur 2016). The study examined the varying levels of acculturation among Turkish immigrants in different European countries and indicated that Turkish immigrants in Australia integrate better into mainstream society than their counterparts in various European countries. Additionally, it investigated the acculturation and language orientations among three generations of Turkish immigrants in Australia. Furthermore, the authors of the article also examined acculturation and language orientations among Turkish immigrants in Australia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands (Yagmur and van de Vijver 2011). The study also highlighted that the use of the native language by Turkish immigrants depends on their contextual needs in various countries, including Australia (Altınkamış and Agirdag 2014). Moreover, the research emphasized the importance of understanding the vitality of ethnic groups, including Turkish communities in Australia (T. Yagmur 2011). It also discussed the impact of acculturation on parenting among Turkish mothers in Australia, indicating a shift in child-centered goals and inductive methods among Turkish migrants in Australia (Yagmurlu and Sanson 2009). The article provides insights into the acculturation orientations of Turkish speakers in Australia, contributing to the understanding of intergenerational differences in acculturation orientations (T. Yagmur 2014). Finally, the study emphasizes the significance of the Turkish language as a strong marker of identity among Turkish immigrants in Europe (Pot et al. 2018).

Furthermore, qualitative studies on Turkish immigrant families in several countries have explored various aspects of their experiences, including language acquisition, identity formation, and social integration. For instance, a study by Kunduz and Montrul (2022) investigated the acquisition of Turkish heritage language among second-generation children and their parents in the U.S. The study used a story-retelling task and a picture selection task to understand the sources of variability in the acquisition of the Turkish heritage language. Similarly, Willard et al. (2015) examined family factors predicting vocabulary in Turkish as a heritage language, highlighting the importance of proficiency in both Turkish and the host country’s language for Turkish immigrant families. Moreover, Daskalaki et al. (2020) delved into the effects of parental input quality in child heritage language acquisition, providing insights into the role of parental input in heritage language development within immigrant families. Additionally, Montrul (2016) emphasized the influence of adult immigrants on the input of heritage speakers, indicating the interconnectedness of language development within immigrant communities. In summary, the qualitative studies on Turkish immigrant families in different contexts have contributed to understanding various aspects of their experiences, including language acquisition, identity formation, and social integration, shedding light on the complexities of heritage language maintenance and the challenges faced by successive generations in immigrant families.

The Current Study

Turkish immigration to the U.S. predates the Immigration Act of 1965, with its origins tracing back to earlier periods (Reimers 1985). Immigration from Turkey to the U.S. can be categorized into three distinct waves: 1820–1921, 1950–1970, and post-1970 (Balgamis and Karpat 2008). During the first wave, American teachers and preachers working in missionary schools in the Ottoman Empire encouraged Turkish students to pursue further education in the U.S. Those who arrived in this first wave either returned to their homeland or fully assimilated into American culture. The assimilated individuals from this wave generally did not maintain connections with Turkish immigrants of the later second and third waves (Balgamis and Karpat 2008).

The second wave of Turkish immigration, spanning 1950–1970, saw a relatively low influx of Turkish immigrants to the U.S., largely due to restrictive U.S. immigration policies at the time. However, post-World War II improvements in Turkey–U.S. relations opened new opportunities for professional development in fields such as the military, engineering, and medicine. Upon completing their degrees, many immigrants from this wave, chose to remain in the U.S. for the sake of their children’s education. This group became highly educated and achieved remarkable success in various fields, including medicine, academia, economics, and sociology (Balgamis and Karpat 2008). Their children, following in their parents’ footsteps, achieved similar levels of success (Süslü 2014).

The third and most recent wave, beginning around 1970 and continuing to the present, saw approximately 200,000 Turks immigrating to the U.S. This wave marked the establishment of numerous community organizations, such as Turkish cultural/community centers, particularly in major cities such as New York City, New Jersey, and Chicago (Balgamis and Karpat 2008).

Despite the significant growth in the Turkish population in the U.S. from the first to the third wave, there remains a scarcity of research on the experiences of contemporary Turkish-American families, particularly in the context of immigration (Isik-Ercan 2014; Nisanci 2020). The present study focuses on this specific immigrant group and investigates how their unique cultural practices influence their experiences in raising bilingual children in the U.S. This article aims to answer two research questions, delving deeper into the experiences and challenges faced by Turkish-American families in the U.S.:

(1)

How do parental acculturation and language attitudes affect Turkish immigrant parents’ motivation to preserve heritage language for their children?

(2)

What strategies do Turkish immigrant parents adopt to maintain heritage language for immigrant bilingual Turkish children in the U.S.?

2. Materials and Methods

This qualitative study included individual interviews with first-generation Turkish immigrant parents of children between the ages of 5 and 11. Data collection and analysis procedures were guided by constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz 2006).

2.1. Participants

Before the interview, each participant signed a consent form. The qualitative data consisted of audio-recorded semi-structured interviews with a set of nine questions in Turkish. The interview duration took approximately 15–20 min—the interviews were conducted by the primary researcher, who is native in Turkish and fluent in English. The majority of the interviews were conducted in Turkish since the primary researcher shared the same language (Turkish), and they had the preference to be interviewed in their native language. Only four out of 20 preferred answering the interview questions in English, and they were fathers. The researcher had the opportunity to invite three more fathers in person, yet they declined to participate. All interviews occurred whether in participants’ home settings or cultural centers. Participants were invited to discuss their experiences of raising a bilingual child as immigrant parents in the U.S., the parents’ acculturation process, the children’s use of their heritage languages in their settings, and strategies used by the parents for maintaining heritage languages.

Table 1. A sample from an interview with a parent.

Researcher: Can you also elaborate on how you see Turkish language ties to Turkish culture? Parent: I see the Turkish language as an enabler that will expose my kids to the cultural source, whether in the form of literature or comfortable visits to Turkey without a language barrier. It also enables them to connect with their relatives back in Turkey and allows them to live in Turkey if they choose to do so.

Researcher: How do you think speaking two languages will affect your child’s language development? Parent: It should affect her development positively as long as the line among the languages is preserved effectively and by providing environments where she can exclusively use one language or the other (and thus avoid vocabulary mix-ups)

Researcher: Do you think that speaking Turkish facilitates your child’s language maintenance or constructing their ethnic identity? Parent: Yes, definitely. As long as it is the exclusive language for an environment, it keeps her connected with the terminology and literature (by enabling her reading in Turkish).

Researcher: Yes, true, but can you provide me with an example that you have experienced with your child in the U.S. regarding the relationships between language maintenance and ethnic identity? Parent: In my opinion, the more obvious way to demonstrate this point is by providing counterexamples: the cases where a lack of language preservation leads to alienation from the culture. I have a 15-year-old niece born and raised in the U.S. without visiting Turkey for the past few years as her Turkish language skills deteriorated, her ability to connect with her visiting grandparents, any literature in Turkish, and even her parents. Especially since all the ‘‘human sources’’ of culture had their cultural identity built up with language intertwined, or in other words, since the cultural and religious terminology has been tied to the language, conveying those values has proven to be a challenge.

below illustrates a sample from a semi-structured interview, and

Table 2. Interview Questions.

1—Do you think it is better or worse for your child if they speak two languages? Why not?

2—Why do you like your child to learn and speak Turkish?

3—How do you think speaking two languages will affect your child’s dual language development?

4—How would you identify your child’s cultural identity? And would you do anything to enhance/change it?

5—Do you think that speaking Turkish facilitates your child’s language maintenance or constructing their ethnic identity?

6—Has your child refused to speak Turkish with a child? How do you respond to his/her choice?

7—How do you facilitate your child(ren) ‘s Turkish language proficiency?

8—How do you think your strategies might change as your child gets older?

9—If you practice reading and/or writing at home with your child, what language(s) do you practice in reading and writing?

shows a list of interview questions we asked the participants during the study.

2.2. Recruitment and Data Collection

Recruitment inclusion criteria were established as follows: (1) children must be bilingual (Turkish–English) or multilingual (Turkish–English plus additional language(s)); (2) children should be aged between 5 and 11 years; (3) at least one parent must have been born in Turkey and should speak Turkish as their native language; (4) at least one parent must be a first-generation immigrant, not born and raised in the United States; (5) parents must have resided in the U.S. for a minimum of 2 years; (6) children must be either born in the U.S. or have lived in the U.S. for at least 2 years; (7) children must not have any known physical or mental disabilities. The rationale for these criteria was to ensure that the parents have been the primary decision-makers regarding language use and transmission within their families. Hence, first-generation immigrant parents were specifically targeted. These criteria were designed to select parent participants who have personal experience with migration and cultural transition. By requiring at least one parent to be a native Turkish speaker, the study focused on families actively engaged in heritage language preservation. Furthermore, including families with bilingual or multilingual children allowed for the exploration of how different language environments, such as Turkish–English or Turkish–English plus another language, affect heritage language preservation.

Recruitment strategies encompassed formal networks (e.g., Turkish cultural centers), informal networks (e.g., social media), and snowball sampling. These multiple strategies enhanced the ability to reach a diverse range of participants. Interviews were conducted in participants’ homes or at cultural centers within their communities. While most interviews were in English, some were conducted in Turkish, depending on the participants’ preferences. Semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions were employed. Participants were invited to share their experiences of raising bilingual children as immigrant parents in the U.S., their acculturation processes, their children’s use of heritage languages, and the strategies they employed for maintaining these languages. The interviews were translated by two bilingual researchers who performed back-translations from Turkish into English. All names used are pseudonyms to ensure the confidentiality of the participants.

Given the emotionally challenging nature of this research, the primary researcher, who conducted all the interviews, implemented several precautions to protect the well-being of the participants. Recognizing the potential emotional impact, participants were informed at the beginning that they could pause or terminate the interview at any time. This option was reiterated whenever any signs of distress were observed, emphasizing their comfort and well-being. Additionally, participants were clearly informed that their involvement was entirely voluntary and that there would be no negative repercussions for withdrawing from the interview at any stage. These measures aimed to ensure that participants did not feel obliged or pressured to continue if they felt uncomfortable. Moreover, the researcher provided resources for emotional support should participants seek professional assistance post-interview. The researcher maintained a compassionate and empathetic approach throughout, creating a safe and respectful environment for participants to openly share their experiences. These steps were vital in upholding the researcher’s duty of care and ensuring the ethical conduct of the study, especially given the sensitive nature of the topics discussed.

2.3. Data Analysis

The current study employed grounded theory methodology for transcript-based thematic analysis, as outlined by Charmaz (2006). This approach involves significant stages of data analysis, including coding and memo writing prior to (pre-writing) the formal analysis. In the qualitative analysis of the interview transcripts, the primary researcher systematically labeled words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs. These labels, referred to as codes, were applied as soon as the first interview was completed. Charmaz (2006) identified four distinct phases of coding in grounded theory: initial coding, focused coding, axial coding, and theoretical coding. During the initial coding phase, data were analyzed in a swift, line-by-line manner to facilitate a close examination of the content and the initiation of conceptual ideas. The second phase, focused coding, involved the development of more directed, selective, and conceptual codes. Here, the primary researcher began to synthesize, segregate, and categorize the interview data.

In the axial coding phase, connections were drawn between categories, subcategories, and the dimensions of each category. The final phase, theoretical coding, involved specifying potential relationships among categories in an integrative manner. Following each coding phase, the most salient themes within the interviews were identified.

Grounded theory’s memo-writing technique was used both before (pre-writing) and after each interview. This process aided in the development of ideas, the analysis of initial and focused codes, the transition from focused codes to conceptual categories, and the elucidation of relationships between categories. The primary themes and potential concepts identified in the transcripts served as tools throughout the interview coding process. The primary researcher meticulously compiled interview transcriptions, focusing on the main themes associated with each concept, and ensured thoroughness by revisiting and scrutinizing the participants’ responses. Consequently, memos played a crucial role in facilitating analysis and fostering self-reflexivity during each phase of the coding process.

Table 3. Coding.

Main Themes	Sub-Themes
1. Motivations for Raising Bilingual Children	Social and Cognitive Benefits Cultural Interconnectedness Global Citizenship
2. Challenges in Maintaining Heritage Language (HL)	Geographical Distance Work Status of Parents Acculturation Experiences Adaptation Process Discrimination and Protection Embarrassment in Children
3. Heritage Language Management Strategies (HLMS)	High Motivation Strategies Low Motivation Strategies
4. Parental Attitudes and Expectations	Adjustments to Diminishing HL Expectations for Bilingual Development Concerns about Language Confusion
5. Cultural and Religious Influences	Culture vs. Religion Social Pressure

shows the list of coding we worked on during the interview analysis.

3. Results

All parents actively participated in maintaining their children’s proficiency in the Turkish language, employing various strategies for heritage language (HL) management to preserve their Turkish skills in multicultural and multilingual environments. However, the attitudes of parents towards language maintenance were influenced by several factors. These included the suitability of their life conditions for preserving or teaching the heritage language and their perceptions of the potential positive impact that heritage language preservation might have on their children’s lives within the context of American society and the global world.

Three themes emerged as contributors to positive language attitudes: the recognition of social and cognitive benefits, the belief in the interconnection between language and culture, and the aspiration to raise children as global citizens. Conversely, six themes contributing to negative language attitudes were identified: the geographical distance between Turkey and the U.S., the employment status of the parents, experiences related to parental acculturation, the parents’ adaptation process, the intention to shield children from discrimination, and the children’s experiences of embarrassment related to language use.

3.1. Factors That Lead to Positive Language Attitudes

3.1.1. Social and Cognitive Benefits

Common language attitudes that drive immigrant parents are centered around the perceived social and cognitive benefits of raising bilingual children. Parents from the Turkish immigrant community view their children’s development in Turkish and English as a privilege that enriches their personal and social lives. They believe that preserving heritage language (HL) is instrumental in fostering bilingualism, a process that brings a mix of significant benefits and challenges.

Mehmet, a parent of a 5-year-old child, regards the upbringing of bilingual children as a distinct advantage, particularly due to the benefits of fluency in two languages. During the interview, Mehmet emphasized that the cognitive and social advantages are key motivators for him in maintaining his child’s HL.

Being bilingual has many cognitive benefits. When you start learning another language, you also know the culture along with it. That leads them to have a better understanding of the world. Based on my limited knowledge, multilingual people’s brains tend to work differently from monolingual people in ways that make multilingual people more creative. Bilinguals also have less mental decline as they get older. (Mehmet).

Enes, another father with a 7-year-old child, similarly views bilingualism as a crucial factor in the development of social character. He believes that since language is intrinsically linked with culture, each language can provide a child with a richer cultural resource, enhancing their identity as global citizens. While some immigrant parents express concerns about teaching their heritage language (HL) to their children for fear of causing language confusion, the parents in this study held a contrary view:

A multicultural child has a richer cultural resource (tradition, language, literature, etc.) that he/she can experience for character development. Also, he/she can understand and appreciate the differences between cultures and, as a result, can be more tolerant of different cultures and world views. When a child tackles learning a foreign language at an early age, later on, he/she can more easily learn a new foreign language. (Enes).

As clearly seen in these examples, parents perceived bilingualism as an opportunity for their children, and this perception increased their motivation to preserve their HL.

3.1.2. Interconnectedness of Language and Culture

The motivation of parents to preserve their heritage language (HL) is rooted in the concept of the interconnectedness of language and culture. Immigrant children possess the flexibility to choose life in either their host country or their home country. Zubeyir perceives the Turkish language as a gateway that will connect his children to their cultural roots. He believes that this connection remains accessible only if the children have exposure to cultural resources (such as books, history of the home country, etc.), which would enable them to feel at ease living in either country.

Based on what life brings, I would like to enable her to live either in the U.S. or Turkey. With that in mind, I can probably give a few examples of how learning Turkish (not just speaking but also reading) has been helping my kids. We can find books about Turkey, or Islam, in great abundance in Turkish. The language provides entry to those knowledge sources in Turkish. Since all the ‘human sources’ of culture had their cultural identity built up with language intertwined, conveying those values has proven to be a challenge (Zubeyir).

Ahmet highlighted the role of language as a medium for transmitting heritage roots, particularly culture. He illustrated that the experience of expressing emotions, such as feelings towards one’s mother, can vary significantly when conveyed in one’s native language compared with a second language due to the contextual nuances inherent in each language.

Culture and Turkish identity go side by side. Culture is usually very contextual, related to one’s surroundings. Turkish culture without the Turkish language is only ceremonial, something to remember about in the past. An English translation of the same experience is not always possible. (Ahmet).

“My Child Should Be a Global Citizen”

Sule is a mother of a 9-year-old child. Her husband is not a Turk, and that means that her child is also exposed to a third language. However, she prefers not to give up maintaining the Turkish language for her child in order to have her child feel the energy of each different language to become a global citizen.

Not only can he speak the language, but also, he feels he belongs to Turkey. He also feels like he belongs to America and Pakistan (where his father is from). In a nutshell, wherever he goes, he feels at home. I distinguish between being a callous nationalist individual and feeling a sense of belongingness. (Sule).

This parent emphasized that preserving HL makes their children global citizens and provides a sense of belonging in different contexts.

3.2. Factors That Lead to Negative Language Attitudes

3.2.1. Geographical Distance Obstacles

Geographical factors and the distance between Turkey and the United States also play a role in influencing parents’ motivation to preserve their heritage language (HL). Humeyra discussed the differing experiences of Turkish immigrants living in Germany compared with those in the U.S. In her interview, she pointed out that the experiences of Turks in the U.S. diverge significantly from those in Germany. She highlighted these differences to underscore the challenges associated with visiting Turkey for those residing in the U.S. Such visits are crucial for maintaining both their heritage language and culture (HC) among immigrant families. However, for Turkish immigrants in the U.S., this option is less feasible due to various hurdles, such as not owning property in Turkey or lacking sufficient time to spend there.

We don’t own houses in Turkey, while Turkish immigrants who have worked for a very long time in Germany tend to own a home in Turkey because they visit there frequently. On the other hand, we go as guests when we visit Turkey. It’s not so easy to stay over in places after about 17 years as a family of 5. Everyone is working and all. I think we would disturb their lives if we stayed for two weeks at my sister’s house as four guests. (Humeyra)

Humeyra pointed out a specific challenge for Turkish immigrants in the U.S.: the necessity of staying with their family of origin or relatives during visits to Turkey. This contrasts with the situation of Turkish immigrants in Germany, who benefit from being geographically closer to Turkey. Consequently, maintaining connections with Turkey appears to be more manageable for immigrants in Germany compared with their counterparts in the U.S.

3.2.2. Working Parents

For Turkish immigrant parents who are both employed full-time, environmental factors tend to facilitate their children’s proficiency in the dominant language, largely because these children spend more time outside the home from an earlier age. Narin, who is a full-time working mother, serves as an example of this phenomenon.

Despite Turkish being their mother tongue, since we are working parents, they were exposed to English more often. Their exposure to Turkish vocabulary at home is limited, so naturally, they can’t learn better since they aren’t educated in Turkish. (Narin).

Sumeyye also observed that her children’s bilingualism developed differently than she expected due to her working schedule as a working parent.

My children are relatively poor at expressing themselves in Turkish, especially our youngest one. Unfortunately, both of them had caregivers that were non-Turkish speakers. And since their friends are only English speakers, as parents who are full-time workers, I guess it was not enough for us to speak only Turkish with them when we are home. (Sumeyye).

3.2.3. Parental Acculturation Experiences

As explained by Zubeyir, immigrant individuals are exposed to two different cultures in different spaces.

Our experiences have been mixed. Usually, work/school vs. family lives are at a contrast, where work/school culture is pretty ‘acculturated,’ although the family life is single-language (Turkish) and resembles more a Turkish household (e.g., food variety, etc.). In a global world, however, it is not only us experiencing ‘acculturation’ but every family in the world, to some extent, with American culture being dominant in media across the world. (Zubeyir).

As a parent, he is predominantly exposed to the dominant culture and language in his workplace and school environments. However, upon returning home, his family creates a sense of “home” by engaging in Turkish cultural practices, such as eating Turkish cuisine and conversing exclusively in Turkish.

Furthermore, the acculturation experiences of parents in the host country significantly impact the process of heritage language (HL) development. These acculturation experiences can encompass various aspects, including adaptation processes, experiences of discrimination, feelings of embarrassment, and degrees of familiarity or unfamiliarity with the new environment.

3.2.4. Adaptation Process

Parents who more readily adapted to the dominant culture tended to encourage their children’s adaptation to the host country as well. Consequently, they expressed less concern about preserving their heritage language (HL). As their children became more assimilated into U.S. culture, the challenge of maintaining HL increased. Sumeyye, who migrated to the U.S. at a very young age and adapted smoothly, did not encounter significant language barriers and completed her higher education in the U.S. Initially, she struggled slightly with understanding sarcasm, metaphors, and irony, but her overall experience was one of integration rather than isolation.

However, after having children and living in a diverse city, Sumeyye faced obstacles in teaching them the Turkish language and culture. The family’s environment, predominantly surrounded by non-Turkish speakers with whom they had good relationships, made it more challenging to provide exposure to the Turkish language due to the scarcity of Turkish-speaking individuals in their immediate surroundings.

Our kids were born and raised in a diverse place like California. Bay Area is a unique experience since we didn’t even have any American neighbors for years. We mostly interacted with Indian, Philippine, Chinese, Pakistani, and Mexican people. Despite our communication language being English, we have many similarities in terms of culture, so it was relatively easy to get along. (Sumeyye).

As parents recognized the benefits of rapid adaptation to the host country, their focus shifted towards ensuring their children’s successful integration as well. Prioritizing their children’s proficiency in English became a key aspect of this adaptation process. Narin’s experience is illustrative of this trend. She and her husband moved to the U.S. to pursue doctoral degrees in engineering, placing them in a cultural environment distinct from that of typical immigrant families. Surrounded by an intellectual community, often open-minded and welcoming to diverse students, Narin was exposed to key concepts that positively influenced her life. Inspired by this experience, she aims to pass on beneficial cultural norms, such as respect and tolerance for various cultures, to her children.

As immigrant parents who came to this country as graduate students, we experienced a global transformation. We were in a highly intellectual environment and interacted with peers from the U.S. and many other cultures. We gradually developed respect and tolerance for many cultures. Our children grow up and go to school in the U.S. They both speak English without an accent. Our experiences caused us to develop sensitivity to social justice. We hope and expect better social justice in both the U.S. and Turkey. We hope to raise children who don’t discriminate against other people because of race, ethnicity, religion, physical, mental, or language abilities. (Narin).

Regarding diversity and rapid adaptation to the host country as advantageous, parents’ motivation is to expose their children to the dominant language and decrease their urgency to preserve HL.

3.2.5. Protection from Discrimination

In addition to diverse acculturation experiences within the U.S. culture, parents have also encountered discrimination. This includes remarks targeting their lifestyles, which are perceived as being at odds with mainstream U.S. culture.

I have been subject to countless racist and xenophobic comments during my acculturation process, mostly due to unfamiliarity between cultures. Did you take a camel ride to universities? You don’t have to cover your head, and your husband can’t force you to. You are free here. Are you allowed to be schooled? But you are the moderate type, right? (I am the conservative type, but I don’t fit Hollywood characterization, I guess). (Humeyra).

Members of minority groups often encounter discrimination based on their appearance, language, and beliefs. Stemming from feelings of embarrassment when using their heritage language (HL), attitudes towards minority groups, including experiences of discrimination, can influence the children’s learning of their home language. In essence, they may gradually lose the motivation to preserve their heritage culture and language.

We better stay away from those people. Mine is a woman in her sixties. (Referring to her pediatrician). It has been years, my daughter grew up with her, and now she is my son’s doctor as well. One day, I had to hurry and told her I was going to leave early for a meeting. She asked what the meeting was. I explained that I was an architect and they needed me on the construction site immediately. It’s almost like being called into the emergency room in a hospital like doctors. So, the woman was shocked to learn that I’m an architect. I saw it vividly in the expression on her face. My friend said my pediatrician probably thinks I’m lying because she has individual opinions about what kind of occupation I could hold. She knows you’re working somewhere, for example, possibly a place like McDonald’s, because she thinks of very few categories, and being an architect isn’t one (Humeyra).

After discussing her experiences, Humeyra revealed that she faced discrimination despite being proficient in English and wished to spare her child from similar challenges, such as bullying. Her exposure to discrimination influenced her reluctance to preserve her heritage language (HL). These examples illustrate that experiencing discrimination as a result of speaking Turkish in public settings has deterred parents from passing on the HL to their children in an effort to protect them from similar discriminatory experiences.

3.2.6. Children’s Feelings of Embarrassment

Some parents have observed that their children feel embarrassed when using their immigrant language, sensing a sense of ‘difference’ from their peers in school as they integrate into the dominant culture. This feeling of embarrassment was particularly evident in the case of Humeyra’s children, who experienced discomfort while using Turkish in the presence of their friends.

My son told me this a couple of times. I would take him to school when he went to elementary school. When he was in 2nd grade, he told me, “Mom, let’s speak English when my friends are around, because otherwise, it will be rude.” He gradually stopped speaking Turkish after he started school. (Humeyra).

Humeyra shared a comparable experience involving her older child. She mentioned that her daughter felt similarly, even though her daughter did not express her feelings as explicitly as her brother, who directly conveyed his feelings to his mother. Figure 1 illustrates the factors that influence parental motivation to preserve the heritage language (HL).

I have a daughter, ten years his senior, and never said anything like that to me. Then, I asked her whether she felt uncomfortable when I spoke Turkish around her. My daughter told me, “Yes, I didn’t tell you about it, but I was embarrassed as well. But I wouldn’t tell you. I’ll pass as he grows more confident; it happened the same way with me, but I was embarrassed in elementary school.” I asked her why she never told me, so she said, “I thought you would feel bad, so I didn’t” (Humeyra).

3.2.7. Heritage Language Management Strategies (HLMS)

The language attitudes of Turkish immigrant parents, significantly shaped by the ecological systems surrounding their families, can lead to varying levels of motivation to teach the heritage language (HL). While some parents are in contexts that facilitate the teaching of HL, others find themselves in less supportive environments. As a result, they adapt their Heritage Language Management Strategies (HLMS). Parents with lower motivation due to their life circumstances strive to find ways to teach HL to their children, despite facing unsupportive conditions. This means that low motivation for teaching HL does not imply a lack of desire or effort to teach HL but rather that their circumstances have fostered negative language attitudes. These circumstances influence both their language attitudes and motivation levels, leading them to adopt strategies that align with their specific situations.

Parents in more favorable circumstances and, thus, with higher motivation to preserve HL tend to employ HLMS, such as enforcing a ‘Turkish only’ speaking rule at home, sending their children to Turkish cultural centers in their neighborhood, engaging in Turkish language-related activities, and/or visiting Turkey.

Interactive methods, such as a play, can be highly effective as HLMS for the active use of Turkish. Zuhal, whose daughter attends a Sunday school to learn Turkish, took an active role in organizing a play in Turkish in which her daughter participated. Following the play’s performance in a theater, Zuhal observed a significant improvement in her daughter’s proficiency in Turkish. There is a Turkish center here close to us. Every Sunday, our kids go there to learn Turkish. I volunteered to organize a play for my daughter’s class. This theater was also in Turkish. They created and read the script by themselves. Even this play was done in a small part of their time at Sunday school. It improved their literacy a lot. (Zuhal).

Another Heritage Language Management Strategy (HLMS) that assists parents in maintaining their children’s Turkish language proficiency is having dinner together as a family. Consistently hearing and engaging in a specific language within various contexts, such as during mealtimes, can facilitate or contribute to the children’s language development in significant ways.

We try to make a rule to speak only Turkish when we are at the dinner table. If they start speaking English, we tell them, “Now try to say that in Turkish” or “Would you like to say that in Turkish?” Secondly, their father and I make sure to speak mostly Turkish at home. Third, we recast the phrases they say in English by restating the Turkish sentences as if we are trying to make sure we understood what they meant to say. Even if they don’t say something in Turkish, we try to make sure they hear and understand what they said in Turkish. (Kadriye).

They might not be the same as children who go to school or live in Turkey, but they are quite familiar with most things from what they observe at home or when we visit Turkey. Every year, we try our best to go to Turkey. We stay with their grandparents when we go to Turkey, and they have a strong bond with them since they look after them there.

Parents whose circumstances diminish their motivation for heritage language maintenance adopt various Heritage Language Management Strategies (HLMS), such as cooking together while using Turkish, reading books written in English but narrating them in Turkish, and watching Turkish movies at home. Despite facing challenges, these parents devise innovative ways to teach heritage language. Narin, who lives in an area with few Turkish speakers, uses cooking time to practice Turkish with her two sons. Recognizing that language is intertwined with context, she has effectively created a linguistic atmosphere at home to facilitate Turkish learning. Additionally, she uses her vacation time in Turkey as an opportunity to teach Turkish to her children. She observed that while her children do not struggle with the Turkish alphabet, they find reading Turkish books tedious because they cannot read them as swiftly as they do in English. In her family, she sources Turkish books, and her husband selects Turkish movies for their children. This strategy demonstrates how tasks are divided in bilingual families to lessen the burden and illustrates how children can learn a language from various speakers and environments.

I try to do small activities such as baking a cake or making a dish or the like. My cookbook is in Turkish. When I’m busy making things while cooking, I have them read the recipe out loud from the cookbook. And they can read what I wrote even though now and then, some of the letters look confusing; they tend to point that out. (Narin).

Narin also noted that while several methods have developed in Turkish, they do not get the same pleasure from Turkish books as they do when they read English. She said that watching movies and films in Turkish makes them feel connected to Turkish while enjoying movies.

We would find Turkish dubbed animations on the internet to watch specifically for films they loved to watch, generally in English. These methods are just our way of trying our best to teach them Turkish that we came up with; we didn’t learn it anywhere. (Narin).

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The motivations behind Turkish immigrant parents’ efforts to preserve the heritage language for their children exhibit nuances that resonate with cross-linguistic studies (Gupta 2020; Sehlaoui and Mousa 2016; Bohnacker 2022). Our findings align with Gupta’s insights into the practical challenges and strategies employed by Indian parents in metropolitan settings. However, divergences highlight the unique sociolinguistic circumstances shaping Turkish immigrant families’ motivations in the U.S.

Turkish parents participating in this study adjust their language attitudes with various HL Management Strategies (HLMS) to preserve their children’s Turkish proficiency. Yet, several factors impact their language attitudes and motivation levels; therefore, their HLMS tend to differ from one another. Motivations that facilitate them to preserve HL depend on their home language environment (e.g., speaking, reading, watching in Turkish), communities (e.g., visiting Turkish centers), and sociolinguistic circumstances (e.g., acculturation experience in the U.S.). A few of the strongest motivations include children’s cognitive skills (e.g., capacities for acquiring more languages) and social benefits (e.g., richness of vision, global citizen, global job opportunities) and the integration of language and culture. Factors that lead to negative language attitudes and decrease parental motivation to teach HL include environmental factors (e.g., geographical distance), family conditions (e.g., full-time working parents), and acculturation experiences (e.g., the adaptation process).

Turkish parents report that they need to adjust their language attitudes as their children get older. Switching between heritage and dominant languages requires effort; thus, the parents in the study believe that their warm language attitudes play a crucial role in making the switching process as smooth and painless as possible, as A. De Houwer (2015) highlights the importance of promoting a harmonious bilingual development process over a conflictive one. Parents with high motivation reported that they preferred to explain to their children the importance of preserving Turkish culture, such as maintaining a connection to a rich culture and literature, communicating with extended family members, and thinking differently since the refusal process is not uncommon among bilingual children (Li et al. 2006). As long as immigrant parents are aware of the reasons for the rejection of using HL in family conversations, they can adopt strategies that motivate children’s eagerness to maintain Turkish. For instance, if parents intend to use HL to consolidate family relationships (Hashimoto and Lee 2011), the refusal process may gradually decrease among those children.

Unlike previous studies, most parents in the present study were highly motivated to perpetuate HLMS despite factors leading to negative language attitudes. For example, in the study sample, there was a parent whose son, born deaf, could not hear until the age of one. After cochlear implant surgery, he began hearing and speaking. Yet, before the surgery, the child was taught sign language. His parents showed extra efforts to teach Turkish and English to manage two languages and cultures in the U.S. Based on the parents’ report, they applied a reading-books-to-child strategy frequently. Later on, their son adapted well to both languages. The more parents show extra effort in consistently reading books in Turkish, and the more children can gradually begin smooth transitions between languages.

Environmental factors such as feelings of embarrassment and facing discriminative behaviors may demotivate children from maintaining their heritage language (Halsted 2013). When parents find themselves in similar situations, where their children refuse to respond in Turkish, they insistently keep the conversation in Turkish. However, if parents do not see any progress in their children’s Turkish development or motivation to speak Turkish, they feel free to talk with them in English unless the parents are not fluent in English. A few parents with high English proficiency believe that as long as their children can comfortably express themselves, the language choice does not matter. Lee et al. (2015) study supports this finding by arguing that because older children can have difficulties expressing inner feelings to their parents in HL, parents may prefer their children to speak only one language; however, they feel comfortable maintaining family bonds.

Jean-Marc Dewaele’s research explored the expression of emotions in multiple languages, with a particular focus on the effects of trait emotional intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety among adult multilinguals (Dewaele et al. 2008). Dewaele’s work also discussed the experience of emotions in multilingual individuals, where some participants reported switching to English to escape social taboos in their native languages and cultures, indicating a form of language shift (Dewaele and Costa 2013). This suggests that the expression of emotions in multilingual contexts is influenced by various sociobiographical factors and may involve language shift dynamics. These findings highlight the complex interplay between language use, emotional expression, and sociocultural influences in multilingual individuals.

Drawing on Dewaele’s research on emotional experiences in multilingual individuals, our findings align with the positive adaptation experiences reported by Turkish parents. The positive adaptation to the U.S., as influenced by intellectual environments, contributes to a unique motivation to transmit cultural norms. This positive adaptation serves as a driving force for heritage language preservation efforts among Turkish immigrant families. Furthermore, Dewaele’s research emphasized the importance of positive emotions in the domain of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), as it influences learners’ decision to engage in language learning (Dewaele and Dewaele 2017). Additionally, Cook and Dewaele (2021) explored the emotional resonance of later-learned languages, linking it to various factors, such as age of acquisition and frequency of use. Moreover, Dewaele’s contributions extended to investigating the effects of trait emotional intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety among adult multilinguals, providing valuable insights into the emotional experiences of individuals in language learning contexts (Dewaele et al. 2008). Furthermore, Shirvan et al. (2020) recommended a shift in the research stream towards studying positive emotions in the domain of SLA, emphasizing the need to consider both positive and negative emotions to understand the emotional experiences of language learners.

Most parents in the present study migrated to the U.S. to pursue doctoral degrees in popular areas, such as engineering and medicine. Consequently, they found themselves surrounded by intellectual people who tend to be very open-minded to diverse students. Thus, the positive adaptation experiences to the U.S. motivated the parents to transmit beneficial cultural norms, such as respect and tolerance for many cultures, to their children. Based on their interviews, those unique experiences usually came with actively using a common language in their school or workplaces: English. Yet, when they come back home from those places, they intend to create a home environment that makes them feel “at home” by eating Turkish cuisine, watching Turkish movies, and talking to each other or relatives online only in Turkish. What can be challenging for these parents is explaining their children’s concepts of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ within multiple contexts, which could potentially affect their dual-language development process, which may impact their dual-language development process (Liang 2018).

Our study, building upon Kunduz and Montrul (2022) and Willard et al. (2015), delves into the diverse strategies Turkish immigrant parents employ to maintain their heritage language. The cross-linguistic insights provided by Montrul (2016) underscore the interconnectedness of language development within immigrant communities, shedding light on the relevance of such strategies across different linguistic and cultural contexts.

A significant cross-linguistic issue pertains to the challenges faced by parents in explaining the concepts of “good” or “bad” to their children within multiple linguistic and cultural contexts. This difficulty can have a profound impact on the dual-language development process of the children. Recent studies have highlighted the complexities involved in conveying moral and ethical concepts across languages and cultures. For instance, a study by Yip and Matthews (2019) emphasized the intricate nature of moral socialization in bilingual children, indicating that the understanding of moral concepts can vary across different languages and cultural frameworks.

Environmental challenges, including geographical distance and discriminative behaviors, echo not only within our study but also in the broader context of cross-linguistic studies (e.g., Montrul 2016). The universality of these challenges implies shared struggles across various immigrant communities, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions that address the impact of environmental factors on language shift. Furthermore, research by Orellana (2016) underscored the challenges faced by immigrant parents in transmitting values and moral expectations to their children in a new linguistic and cultural environment. These studies suggest that the cross-linguistic transfer of moral concepts and values is a multifaceted process that can significantly influence the heritage language preservation efforts within Turkish immigrant families in the U.S. Therefore, addressing the complexities of conveying moral and ethical concepts in a cross-linguistic context is crucial for understanding the dynamics of heritage language maintenance and the development of bilingual proficiency among Turkish immigrant children in the U.S.

In summary, this study highlights the challenges and strategies of Turkish immigrant families in the U.S. Within the context of cross-linguistic studies, these strategies and challenges display commonalities and challenges with other immigrant groups. The nuanced interplay of motivations, acculturation, strategies, environmental factors, emotional experiences, and cross-linguistic transfer of moral concepts underscore the complexity of heritage language maintenance and the development of bilingual proficiency in this immigrant community. Further research is warranted to delve deeper into the specific dynamics shaped by the U.S. sociocultural landscape.

4.1. Limitations

Demographic Homogeneity. One limitation of our study lies in the homogeneity of the sample regarding demographic characteristics. The majority of Turkish immigrants in our study have higher educational and financial attainments, reflecting the historical trend of early Turkish immigrants arriving in the U.S. for educational purposes. As Balgamis and Karpat (2008) and Süslü (2014) noted, this demographic characteristic might limit the generalizability of our findings to Turkish immigrants with lower education levels. Future research should consider a more diverse sample to provide a comprehensive understanding of the dual-language development process across various educational backgrounds.

Age Group Specificity. Another limitation is the age group specificity of our findings, focusing on children aged 5–11. While this age range provides valuable insights into developing cognitive and emotional characteristics, caution is needed when generalizing findings to other age groups. Adolescents, in particular, represent a distinct developmental stage, requiring nuanced exploration of their language attitudes and acculturation experiences. Subsequent research should extend its scope to include adolescent groups and consider factors such as identity, self-consciousness, and cognitive flexibility, as highlighted by Nisanci (2020).

Sample Size and Independence. The limited sample size (N = 20) of our study raises a concern about the robustness and generalizability of our findings. Additionally, the lack of true independence among participants, who were selected from the same social networks, may introduce potential biases. Future research should strive for a more extensive and diverse participant pool, incorporating a quantitative focus to enhance the statistical power of the study and ensure greater independence among participants.

Exclusion of Turkish Children. An additional limitation is the exclusion of Turkish children from our study. While our focus was on parental perspectives, including children in future studies, particularly through parent–child dyadic interactions, would offer a more holistic understanding of the dual-language development process. Exploring children’s experiences and perceptions can provide valuable insights into how they navigate language attitudes and practices within the family context.

4.2. Implications and Suggestions for Future Research

The findings of this study hold significant implications for promoting early bilingualism interventions within immigrant families, aligning with the broader cross-linguistic research landscape. Insights from Gupta (2020), Sehlaoui and Mousa (2016), and Bohnacker (2022) emphasized the importance of such interventions to address the challenges faced by immigrant families in heritage language (HL) preservation.

Early Bilingualism Interventions. This study underscores the need for tailored interventions targeting Turkish immigrant parents to enhance their role in maintaining their children’s HL proficiency. Drawing inspiration from A. De Houwer’s (2015) emphasis on positive language attitudes, these interventions should empower parents to navigate acculturation experiences effectively and instill a harmonious bilingual development environment at home. Practical methods and strategies should be incorporated into these interventions, enabling immigrant families to create environments that motivate children to sustain their HL alongside the majority language in the U.S.

Integration of Bilingual Education Models. The promotion of bilingual education models, reflecting the experiences reported by Turkish immigrant families, can bridge the linguistic gap between immigrant children and their American counterparts. Informed by the diverse strategies identified in cross-linguistic studies (Kunduz and Montrul 2022; Willard et al. 2015), integrating bilingual education models into public schools can foster an inclusive learning environment, encouraging language proficiency in both heritage and majority languages.

Holistic Language Support. Building on Lee et al.’s (2015) assertion that children of immigrants require consistent support in their first language, this study highlights the need for comprehensive language support systems. Immigrant families should be equipped with resources that provide home and societal support, ensuring the sustained proficiency of heritage languages among the younger generations. Further exploration of these support mechanisms, informed by cross-linguistic insights, is imperative to develop effective and culturally sensitive language support programs.

Continued Exploration of Bilingualism in the U.S. While this study contributes valuable insights, there remains a substantial need for continued research aimed at understanding the broader landscape of bilingualism among U.S. immigrant families, particularly those from various linguistic backgrounds. This could benefit from a more comprehensive understanding of the nuanced factors influencing bilingual language development. Building on the foundation laid by cross-linguistic studies, future research endeavors should delve into diverse linguistic and cultural contexts to better support immigrant families in navigating the complexities of bilingualism in the U.S.

In conclusion, this study not only emphasizes the immediate need for targeted interventions but also highlights the importance of sustained research efforts to comprehensively support immigrant families in their bilingual language journeys. The integration of cross-linguistic perspectives strengthens the implications of this research, creating a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities in heritage language preservation among immigrant communities in the U.S.