Volume 2016, Issue 237 - Special Issue: Middle Eastern Languages in Diasporic USA communities, Issue Editors: Maryam Borjian and Charles Häberl

Turoyo, an endangered Neo-Aramaic language that originated in the area of Tur Abdin in southeastern Turkey and had not been written prior to this century, is spoken today by around 50,000 people scattered worldwide. Spurred on by persecution, Turoyo-speaking immigrants began to arrive in the US as early as the late 1890s. We focus our study on a northern New Jersey community in which Turoyo is spoken. This tight-knit community, whose religious and social center is the Mor Gabriel Syriac Orthodox Church, is made up of around 200 families. The community is working hard to pass the language on to their children through speaking Turoyo in the home and in church, and also through programs including a specially created Sunday school curriculum, a weekly Aramaic school, and a summer day camp. However, despite the community’s best efforts, language shift is taking place. We use a sociolinguistic approach involving sociolinguistic methods and interviews to show that family, social networks, and religion influence who is most likely to be a proficient speaker of Turoyo in this community, but that identity is the one sociolinguistic variable that can best account for the variety of cases in which language shift is taking place.

This article examines the state of Western Armenian language instruction in Armenian day schools within the United States to evaluate the state of language transmission and acquisition through the specific structure of private schools. In analyzing methodologies and modes of instruction, content development, resources, teacher training and student demographics, we aim to identify patterns that can pose a challenge to or serve as models for Armenian language instruction and, ultimately, the maintenance of Western Armenian, which UNESCO classified as an endangered language in 2010. To begin with, we offer an overview of the standardization of modern Western Armenian, first, in the late 1800s in Constantinople and subsequently, in the Middle East after World War II. Then, we examine Armenian immigration to the United States to understand the impact of language use as well as the establishment of educational and other institutions necessary for its prolonged existence. The move to establish Armenian day schools in the United States dates back to the 1960s. We trace the development of this movement and study the current state of language instruction, as well as current trends in student demographics, to ask how successful these institutions are in heritage language maintenance.

Juhuri is a dialect of the Tat language of the eastern Caucasus (specifically, Dagestan and Azerbaijan). Although Juhuri is dialectologically related to Persian, it is not mutually intelligible with any Persian dialect. The Juhuri speakers, called Mountain Jews, are estimated at around 200,000, most of whom have immigrated to Israel and the United States. The New York community is largely centered in Brooklyn around the Kavkazi Jewish Congregation. The language is still spoken by those born in the Caucasus, and is maintained in some families and some spheres of daily life. Many of these Mountain Jews are multilingual in Juhuri, Russian, Azerbaijani, Hebrew, and English. In this article, we situate the language within the context of the New York expatriate community and explore the role of Juhuri in relation to ethno-religious identity, language attitude, and functional domains. The data reported on here are based on interviews and a written survey. We conclude that although the odds are heavily stacked against the survival of Juhuri, there may be a critical mass of language activists who can turn the tide. The fate of the language in the twenty-first century will likely be decided in the next two decades.

This article situates the Kurdish language within the diasporic context of the United States, and explores the roles that the language plays for the community. This is investigated through a mixed method encompassing literature and media reviews, interviews with community members and leaders, and a survey conducted among the Kurds in Southern California. The findings show that both first and second generation Kurds see their language not only as a symbol of their cultural identity and survival but a means of building and maintaining relations with each other, with other Kurds in the US, with relatives in the homeland, and also with their heritage. Nevertheless, members of the second generation think that language constitutes one of the most challenging cultural heritage elements to keep for many linguistic, socio-economic, cultural, and political reasons. The article concludes that there are no easy ways of maintaining minority languages like Kurdish much less transmitting them to future generations. The prospect for a promising future seems highly unlikely as long as heritage languages in the US are perceived as personal choices only, and the state does not assume responsibility for their maintenance let alone their transmission to future generations of newer immigrants.

As a relatively new, highly educated, professional and entrepreneurial immigrant group, Iranian Americans display complex linguistic patterns. In this article, we analyze data from the American Community Survey (ACS) on English language proficiency and languages spoken at home for the first- and second-generation Iranian Americans. These quantitative data are supplemented by in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of Iranian American families in the northeastern United States on their behavior and attitudes toward learning and preserving their native language (Persian). Although ACS data show high English language proficiency among first-generation Iranian immigrants, they also show a relatively high usage of Persian language among this ethnic group. Findings show that parents and children had positive behavior and attitudes toward the preservation of Persian. As transnational families, parents have created a “tool kit” to ensure that Persian will persist at least through the second generation. Maintaining transnational ties, attending weekly cultural and religious events, providing Persian instruction, and controlling children’s language use at home were among the most important mechanisms of ethnic language maintenance.

This article examines the ways in which Hebrew education was construed in the United States by tracing the Hebrew ideology debate of the early and mid-1900s, when dramatic changes were made to modernize Jewish schooling and its place within American society. Focusing on the Hebrew learning ideologies and educational philosophies of Samson Benderly and his followers, it examines how the Ivrit b’Ivrit movement – teaching Jewish content in Modern Hebrew – re-conceptualized Hebrew education not only as a form of language acquisition, but as a means of defining and giving shape to American Judaism for the Jewish immigrant community at that time.

Focusing on the educational efforts of a diverse ethnolinguistic community, this article considers the rationales, mechanisms, and channels adopted by Arabic-speaking communities in the US to teach and learn the Arabic language. The article draws on research conducted with a number of Arabic speaking populations in New York to situate Arabic language education in the US within the transnational context of conflict and migration. By employing a transnational lens, it provides insights into both the growing interest in the Arabic language, and conversely, the challenges posed to Arabic bilingual community efforts. The findings illustrate the embeddedness of Arabic language efforts in the US within a larger sociopolitical and sociohistorical context of conflict. This context, I argue, has shaped the rationales and means adopted by US Arabic-speaking communities to teach the Arabic language to their American children.

This article draws on an ethnographic case study on a Turkish community-based school in New York, and discusses relationship building within this community. The larger study investigated the following research question: What is the role and function of a Turkish Saturday school in developing and maintaining Turkish language and constructing a Turkish cultural identity in the United States? It employed a conceptual framework combining language shift and maintenance, linguistic identity and ideology. Ethnographic data were analyzed following Gee’s (2005 [1999]) Discourse analysis framework. Four building blocks of Discourses were found in the Turkish community school. The focus of this article, language choices and identities, were the two essential Discourses of relationship building block . They pointed to a gap between the first-generation adults’ and the second-generation students’ language choices and identities in the school. Adults preferred and encouraged Turkish while students mostly used English. Adults considered children having a Turkish core identity; the children demonstrated fluid and hybrid identities. Nevertheless, both parties adapted to each other. Teachers translanguaged for clarity, students spoke Turkish “to adults”. Parents used Turkish language and ways of being, alongside an investment in English.