Show Less
Restricted access

Intergenerational Language Use and Acculturation of Turkish Speakers in Four Immigration Contexts


Kutlay Yağmur

Immigrant integration dominates the social, political, and scientific agendas of immigrant-receiving countries. Integration requires mutual co-ordinated efforts of both the host and immigrant groups. This book presents a macro level perspective on language maintenance, shift and acculturation orientations of Turkish immigrants in major immigration contexts, namely, Australia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. The findings show a close relationship between the integration ideology, policies and practices of the receiving societies and the acculturation outcomes of immigrants. Intergenerational differences in language use and choice as well as acculturation orientations of Turkish immigrants in the four national contexts have serious implications for policy makers and researchers.

Show Summary Details
Restricted access

Chapter 8: Comparative Outcomes in the Four National Contexts and Conclusions


← 294 | 295 →

Chapter 8:  Comparative Outcomes in the Four National Contexts and Conclusions

8.1  Introduction

Before presenting the final discussion and conclusions, findings in the four national context will be presented in this final chapter. We2 examined acculturation and language orientations among Turkish immigrants in Australia (n = 283), France (n = 266), Germany (n = 265), and the Netherlands (n = 271). We expected that in the countries with the least pluralistic climate (France and Germany), Turkish immigrants would show the lowest level of sociocultural adjustment and the highest level of ethnic orientation and language use, the opposite was expected in Australia, as the country with the most pluralistic climate, and the Netherlands would have an intermediate position. The predictions were largely borne out. The language orientation measures yielded a (symbolic) language value factor and a (behavioural) language preference factor. In all countries Turkish identity was a positive predictor and mainstream identity a negative predictor of both the language value and preference factor. Mainstream and Turkish identity showed stronger negative correlations in the less pluralistic countries. It is concluded that immigrants showed the least maintenance and most adjustment in Australia, which is the country with the least pressure to assimilate.

8.2  Integration Ideologies in the Four Countries

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.