Linguistic Assimilation of First-Generation Jewish South African Immigrants in Israel

Int. Migration & Integration DOI 10.1007/s12134-012-0257-1

Rebeca Raijman

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Abstract We contribute to scholarship on the linguistic assimilation of migrants by focusing on the special case of Jewish South African migrants in Israel. English as an international language is widely used in the Israeli society, so immigrants whose mother tongue is English are a very interesting case because they might experience much less social pressure to improve their Hebrew skills than other immigrant groups who speak other languages. The study reveals that, although most first-generation immigrants participated in state-sponsored Hebrew classes and reported relatively moderate levels of language proficiency, it has not become their primary language. Hebrew proficiency proved conditional on age at arrival and rise sharply with tenure in the country and exposure to Hebrew (at origin or at destination). Hebrew proficiency is higher for migrants with more extensive contacts with Israelis and with higher education. Positive synergism emerged between language acquisition and reasons for migrating and attachment to the country.

Keywords Language proficiency. Israel . South Africans . Assimilation

Introduction

This paper focuses on the process of linguistic assimilation of Jewish South African immigrants in Israel. Language has been considered a critical domain for assessing immigrants’ economic and social adjustment in host countries, and substantial research supports this view (Espenshade and Fu 1997; Espinosa and Massey 1997; Chiswick 1998; Chiswick and Miller 1998; Van Tubergen and Kalmijn 2009;Van Tubergen and Wierenga 2011). In Israel, many studies have documented immigrants’ patterns of language proficiency, focusing on specific groups, especially those from the former Soviet Union (see, e.g., Ben-Rafael et al. 1998, 2006; Mesch 2003;

R. Raijman (*) Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel e-mail: [email protected] R. Raijman

Remennick 2003a, 2004), or on several groups for a comparative perspective (Beenstock 1996; Chiswick 1998).1 Still, we know relatively little about the process of linguistic assimilation in English-speaking immigrant groups in Israel. Given that English is an international language and widely used in the Israeli society, immigrants whose mother tongue is English are a very interesting case because they might be under much less social pressure to improve their Hebrew skills than other immigrant groups who speak other languages (Beenstock 1996). Our research design combines data from a representative sample of Jewish South African immigrants with in-depth interviews. Most studies provide quantitative information on immigrants’ language proficiency but cannot furnish evidence on the underlying socioeconomic mechanisms associated with linguistic assimilation; these cannot always be captured by statistics, simple or sophisticated. Our mixed- method approach affords a rich and more complete picture of the complex process involved.

Immigration to Israel

Israel is a society of immigrants and their offspring, where at the end of the twentieth century, two out of three members of the Jewish majority were foreign-born (40%)orofthesecondgeneration(30%)(RaijmanandKemp2010). Unlike most migratory movements, immigration to Israel has been characterized as a returning ethnic migration. The centrality of the idea of immigration as a return from the Diaspora is expressed in the Law of Return of 1950. This law grants Israeli citizenship to Jews and their children immediately upon arrival in the country. Jewish immigrants (hereinafter olim)2 came to Israel in a series of waves (see Appendix 1). The first arrived at the turn of the twentieth century mainly from European countries. The second wave arrived shortly after statehood (1948) in the context of the incremental immigration of Middle Eastern and North African Jews and survivors of the Holocaust. Immigration in the three decades after the establish- ment of the state (1960s to 1980s) was more sporadic and less systematic. It was characterized by a slow but constant stream of immigrants from North and South America, as well as immigrants from South Africa, Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Ethiopia, and Iran. By then, a broad infrastructure of public housing and support was available for all new immigrants. Research indicates that, over time, most of the immigrants of the 1970s and the 1980s became fully integrated and achieved higher levels of socioeconomic status (Raijman and Semyonov 1995, 1997; Cohen 2002, p. 46). At the beginning of the 1990s, Israel witnessed a renewal of massive immigration flows, mainly from immigrants from the former Soviet Union and their families who came to Israel under the Law of Return. Between 1989 and 2010, more than one million people immigrated to the country. To this main group, we should add the flow

1 These studies are based on the 1972 Census of Population. It is interesting to note that, in Israel, a country of immigrants, there is a lack of systematic collection of relevant data for the study of linguistic assimilation of immigrant groups. 2 In Israel, immigrants arriving under the Law of Return are labeled olim (Hebrew for “ascenders”). We decided to use this word rather than immigrants because our respondents defined themselves as olim. Linguistic Assimilation of Jewish South African Immigrants of immigrants arriving from Ethiopia (4.1 % of all immigrants arriving during the 1990s and 10.2 % of those arriving during the 2000s) and a smaller but constant flow of Jewish immigrants from Western and Central Europe, North and South America, and South Africa. These immigrants account for some 7.7 % of all immigrants arriving during the 1990s and 24.8 % of all immigrants arriving during the 2000s (Raijman and Kemp 2010).3

South African Immigration to Israel

Beginning in the 1880s, Jews came to South Africa from Eastern Europe, mainly from Lithuania and Byelorussia (Horowitz and Kaplan 2001). Upon arrival, they were granted full citizenship rights, and in the years since then, successive gener- ations have became highly acculturated and integrated into the country’s socioeconomic and political life (Dubb 1994). As elsewhere in the Diaspora, the educational attainment of the Jews is much higher than that of the general population—the White population in the case of South Africa—as a whole. They tend to be overrepresented in the professional, administrative, and sales occupations, concentrate in the com- mercial, financial, and manufacturing sectors, and belong largely to the middle and upper income categories. Although South African Jews have acculturated almost exclusively to the country’s English-speaking culture, pro-Jewish and Zionist sentiments prevail almost universally among them (Kaplan Center for Jewish Studies 2006). Since the 1970s, South Africa has become a major source of Jewish emigration to other English-speaking countries and to Israel. Political instability and violence—or fear of such circumstances in the future—have been important determinants of migration.4 In the 1970s, the target destinations were primarily Israel (38 %) and English-speaking countries (23.7 % to the USA, 15.2 % to Britain, 12.9 % to Australia, and 9.4 % to Canada) (Dubb 1994, pp. 20–21). Emigration soared in the 1990s due to a dramatic surge in violent crime rates and economic uncertainty, both of which have been associated with the 1994 shift to Black majority rule (Dubb 1994; Kosmin et al. 1999). By then, distribution by destination countries changed dramat- ically, with Australia topping the list at almost 40 %, followed by the USA with 20 %, Israel with 15 %, and Britain and Canada at around 10 % each (Horowitz and Kaplan 2001). The reduced position of Israel indicates a decline in its ideological appeal for South African Jews. The evidence suggests that Israel sometimes functionsasanemergency“destination of last resort,” particularly when barriers to entry into English-speaking countries cannot readily be overcome at short notice (Horowitz and Kaplan 2001, p. 9). Since the founding of the State of Israel, approximately 25,000 South African Jews have entered the country under the terms of the Law of Return. 5

3 Since 1993, we should also add to these numbers a stable flow of non-Jewish labor migrants recruited to replace noncitizen Palestinian workers in the Israeli labor market. These labor migrants (documented or undocumented) comprise 10 % of the labor force (Raijman and Kemp 2010). 4 The 1976 Soweto uprising and the 1985 State of Emergency are examples of the surges in political violence. Renewed political violence was also feared in the run up to the 1994 elections. 5 Averaging the number of South African Jews over the past century, we find that some 20–25 % of them immigrated to Israel. R. Raijman

Figure 1 illustrates the migration flows of South Africans to Israel. Immigration to Israel has been unstable, surging during periods of political unrest and violence in the late 1970s, mid-1980s, and mid-1990s, when South African Jews, anxious about their immediate safety, took advantage of Israel’s Law of Return. In the 2000s, migration flows dropped to relatively low levels, although some increase has occurred since 2008. South African olim, who constitute a selective population displaying relatively high levels of education and socioeconomic attainment in Israel, have not been a major focus of systematic research. In this paper, we focus on the linguistic assimilation of the first generation.

Linguistic Assimilation: Theoretical Background

The literature on immigrants’ linguistic assimilation suggests several factors that are associated with language proficiency. Sociologists and economists describe the process of language acquisition as an investment in human capital that improves labor market opportunities for new immigrants. The human capital approach tends to stress three main factors: (1) economic incentives for acquiring language skills, (2) exposure to language in the country of origin and of destination, and (3) efficiency in converting economic incentives and exposure into language skills (see Chiswick 1998, p. 255). The logic underlying economic incentives is that investment in language skills improves economic assimilation. Age at migration is singled out as an important predictor of language proficiency. Younger immigrants have greater economic incentives to learn the language because the expected high socioeconomic returns on such an investment extend over more years. Immigrants arriving at an older age will presumably display lower levels of language acquisition because of the shorter time remaining to enjoy returns on the investment (Stevens 1992; Chiswick 1998;Van Tubergen and Kalmijn 2009; Van Tubergen and Wierenga 2011). Participation in the labor market also increases the likelihood of improving language proficiency and use, especially for those in highly skilled occupations (Beenstock 1996; Espinosa and Massey 1997; Mesch 2003; Remennick 2003b).

Fig. 1 Trends in South African immigration to Israel. Source: Statistical Abstract of Israel, various years Linguistic Assimilation of Jewish South African Immigrants

Exposure to the host country’s language in the origin and receiving countries is associated with higher levels of linguistic assimilation. Immigrants who have participated in frameworks of language training in their countries of origin and of destina- tionhaveprovenmorefluentthanthosewhohavenot(Beenstock1996;Van Tubergen and Wierenga 2011). Likewise, language proficiency tends to increase with tenure in the country (for the case of Israel, see, for example, Chiswick 1998; Mesch 2003; Remennick 2004). Exposure is also related to the degree of ethnic enclosure of specific immigrant groups, measured by residential concentration and the ethnic composition of social networks (Stevens 1992; Espenshade and Fu 1997; Mesch 2003). Studies argue that immigrants who tend to bond with co-ethnics and live in neighborhoods with a larger concentration of immigrants from the same country of origin or language-specific community are less exposed to the local language and use their mother tongue more in daily interactions (Van Tubergen and Kalmijn 2009;Van Tubergen and Wierenga 2011). Another relevant arena for exposure is the family, so marital status has an impact on language skills (Stevens 1992; Chiswick and Miller 1998; Van Tubergen and Kalmijn 2009). Married people with a co-ethnic partner tend to use their mother tongue more often for daily family interaction, whereas married people with a non-co-ethnic partner and single people have more opportunities to become proficient in the local language. The presence of young children also increases the likelihood of language proficiency, as children are more likely to use the local language in daily interactions. Efficiency refers to the ways in which incentives and exposure affect language proficiency. Age and education have been singled out as key determinants of language acquisition. Younger and better-educated individuals are better able to acquire new language skills than their older and less well-educated counterparts (Stevens 1999; Van Tubergen and Kalmijn 2009; Van Tubergen and Wierenga 2011). Young immigrants participating in the school system of the host country acquire higher levels of proficiency than those who acquired their education in the country of origin. Finally, highly educated immigrants invest more in language acquisition because it improves their economic assimilation into the host society (Mesch 2003). Some scholars have also suggested that factors prior to immigration, such as the motives for immigration (e.g., push or pull factors), are determinants of linguistic assimilation (Van Tubergen and Kalmijn 2009). The motivation hypothesis holds that immigrants who arrived as a result of push factors might see themselves as temporary residents in the host country and have a stronger motivation to maintain their own culture and language. By contrast, immigrants drawn by pull factors might be more interested in adapting to the new culture, so they are more willing to invest in acquiring the language of the receiving society (Chiswick and Miller 2001; Mesch 2003). The commitment of the immigrants to the new country is also an important consideration. Those who feel attached to the host society may be more willing to invest in language acquisition and, therefore, become more proficient in the local language (Chiswick and Miller 1995; Mesch 2003). Based on this theoretical outline, we next describe the levels of Hebrew proficiency among South African olim (first generation) and detail the process of Hebrew acquisition in both South Africa and Israel. We follow this description with a multivariate analysis to identify the main factors affecting the Hebrew proficiency R. Raijman of those arriving in the host country as adults. Finally, we discuss the findings in light of existing theories of linguistic assimilation.

Methodology

The research is based on a mixed-method approach that combines quantitative (survey) and qualitative (in-depth interviews) methods of data collection. The grow- ing literature on mixed methods in the social sciences advances two major arguments about the benefits of linking qualitative and qualitative methods. The first relates to issues of convergence, which deal with obtaining further evidence or counterevidence for research findings. This argument maintains that, by combining methods of data collection and conducting tests that draw upon varying methods, we can improve the validity of theories. The second argument is based on the complementary nature of research findings. It assumes that each methodological tradition (qualitative and quantitative) can interpret only specific aspects of reality, which have to be combined to produce a deeper understanding of social phenomena (see, e.g., Miller and Gatta 2006). In our study, we collected survey data in 2008 for a representative sample of South African olim: 607 respondents arriving in Israel as adults (hereinafter the first generation). In addition, we conducted 17 in-depth, semistructured interviews with South African olim (see the list in Appendix 2). The average length of the interview was about 2 h. Interviews were conducted in Hebrew and English according to the respondents’ preferences. All interviews were recorded with the consent of the participants. We conducted the interviews using a set of questions that included items about the respondents’ pre-immigration background, incentives and reasons for immigration, language proficiency and language use, patterns of identity, social networks, and community participation. The interviews were useful in understanding how South African immigrants cope with linguistic disadvantages in Israel.

Dependent Variable: Level of Hebrew Proficiency

Level of Hebrew proficiency was based on the respondents’ self-reports. Although some researchers have expressed concern about the validity of self-reports of language proficiency, other studies have shown strong correlations between self-reports and objective measures of proficiency (Stevens 1992; Espenshade and Fu 1997). Following other studies (Remennick 2003c; Hurtado and Vega 2004; Van Tubergen and Wierenga 2011), we determined the level of Hebrew proficiency from respondents’ answers to three questions that were combined to construct an index: “How would you evaluate your ability to (1) conduct a conversation, (2) read, and (3) write in Hebrew currently?” Answers were given on a five-point scale ranging from 1 0 very weak to 5 0 very good (Cronbach’salphawas0.87).

Independent variables

Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics of the independent variables. Indicators of the relevant factors affecting Hebrew proficiency are described according to the three Linguistic Assimilation of Jewish South African Immigrants

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of independent variables (N0607)

Variables Mean Percentage

Incentives Age at migration 27.6 (8.3) – Labor market position Percent professional, technical, managerial 64.0 Exposure Level of Hebrew proficiency before arrival (1 0 none, 5 0 very high). 2.2 (1.0) Ulpan attendance Percent not attending ulpan 9.7 Years since migration 18.9 (11.7) – Marital status Married—partner native English speaker 45.0 Married—partner non-native English speaker 31.0 Other 24.0 Children under 18 years old living in the house 47.0 Ethnic composition of neighborhood 50 % or more English speakers 13.0 Ethnic composition of social networks 50 % or more Israeli friends 39.0 Efficiency Years of schooling 16.3 (2.9) Motives for migration Ideological 3.5 (1.1) Commitment to the new country Israeli identity (percent very strong) 46.4 Gender % Female 50.0 dimensions outlined in the theoretical background. To test the economic motivation hypothesis, we included age at migration (measured in years) and labor market position (measured as a dummy variable: professional, technical, and managerial jobs 0 1, other 0 0). To test the relevance of exposure for language proficiency, we included the following variables: level of Hebrew proficiency before arrival (measured on a scale from 1 0 none to 5 0 very high); ulpan6 attendance (measured as number of months attending Hebrew courses in Israel), and years since immigration. Additional variables measuring exposure were marital status (we contrasted respondents married to a native English-speaking spouse with respondents married to a non-native English- speaking spouse or single) and children under 18 years old living at home. Ethnic concentration in the neighborhood was measured by the respondent’s self-report of the percentage of English-speaking olim residing there and his or her percentage of

6 An ulpan is an institute or school for the intensive study of Hebrew. R. Raijman

Israeli friends. To test the efficiency hypothesis, we controlled for education (measured as total years of formal education). Motives for immigration were measured as the average score on the questions measuring ideological reasons for immigrating: desire to live among Jews, religious beliefs, and Zionism (1 0 not at all, 5 0 to a very great extent). Immigrants’ commitment to the new country was measured by the question “To what extent do you feel or not feel Israeli?” (1 0 not at all, 5 0 very much). We also controlled for gender differences (male 0 1). Data in Table 1 show that most respondents were young when they came to Israel—27 years old on average—and came with high levels of ideological motives. Their average tenure in the country was about 19 years. Before leaving South Africa, most knew some Hebrew, but their proficiency was rather limited. Upon arrival, the majority attended ulpan. By the time of the survey, South African olim had achieved a relatively high socioeconomic level as evinced by the high levels of formal education (16 years on average) and the high percentage (64 %) of respondents working in professional, technical, and managerial jobs. Thirty-nine percent reported that 50 % or more of their friends were Israeli, and only 13 % lived in neighborhoods where 50 % or more of the residents were English speakers. A high percentage of olim (45 %) were married to a native English speaker, and 47 % lived in households with children younger than 18 years. The data also reveal a relatively strong attachment to the country, as 46 % reported feeling Israeli to a very great extent.

Data Analysis

Previous research has shown that higher levels of linguistic assimilation result from exposure to the host society’s language in the origin and receiving countries. Therefore, South African olim who have had Hebrew training in both countries will presumably be more fluent in it than those who have not. Accordingly, we now describe (1) the extent to which first-generation respondents arrived with some level of Hebrew skills that can be easily transferred to the new society and (2) their degree of investment in language acquisition upon arrival in Israel. These two parts are followed by an analysis of current levels of Hebrew proficiency.

Hebrew Proficiency Before Arrival

Many of the South African olim acquired some familiarity with Hebrew before immigrating to Israel through their active participation in their Jewish communities in South Africa. Given that attendance at Jewish schools and involvement in syna- gogue activities and youth movements was relatively high, we expect that South African olim would have acquired some level of Hebrew skills before their arrival in Israel. In Fig. 2, we present the self-reported premigration levels of Hebrew proficiency in reading, speaking, and writing. The data show that, before immigrating to Israel, almost half of the respondents reported having a reading level and a writing level between fair and very good (47 % and 40 %, respectively), but lower levels of speaking abilities (about 30 %). These results suggest that some of the respondents had a minimal baseline for further language improvement. Linguistic Assimilation of Jewish South African Immigrants

Fig. 2 Hebrew proficiency before arrival, first generation

Despite some familiarity with Hebrew, many olim were not able to take advantage of their language skills during the first year after arrival. Lack of language skill transferability could be explained by the fact that, in South Africa, in most institu- tional frameworks in which Hebrew was taught and/or used, the emphasis was on reading and writing, and less on speaking. Moreover, reading and writing were taught mostly with the use of vowel points (nikkud), so after arrival in Israel, olim could not read (or write) Hebrew fluently given that most written communication in Israel does not use these vowel points.7 Many olim also complained that the Hebrew vocabulary they learned in South Africa derived from texts such as the Hebrew Bible or classical Jewish literature. Therefore, part of their vocabulary was not well suited to everyday life in Israel. Many olim discovered that, despite their investment in learning Hebrew in South Africa, they were unable to conduct a fluent and simple conversation with Israelis. Take, for example, the cases of Shelly and Lesley, who studied Hebrew in their childhood in South Africa through all their years of formal education until they completed high school. Shelly: …Twelve years I learned Hebrew at school. When I came to Israel, I could not speak … Okay, I had the basis of grammar, I learned the Bible, I learned literature, I read Tchernichovsky, but not speaking. It gave me a very good base when I got here but I had to learn here to talk (arrived in 1986; current age, 43). Lesley: I learned in school…, but it was another Hebrew. When I came, they told me to forget what I learned in school, it was not related to daily life but it was some kind of basis (arrived in 1989; current age, 46). Although previous training in one’s country of origin does not always promise a good command of Hebrew upon arrival, it does serve as a steppingstone for linguistic assimilation in the future, as we shall show.

7 Nikkud is a system of diacritical marks to represent vowels or distinguish alternative pronunciations of letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In modern Israeli orthography, nikkud is seldom used, except in specialized texts, such as dictionaries, poetry, or writing for children or new immigrants. R. Raijman

Language Training in Israel

Upon arrival, all adult olim in Israel are given the opportunity to participate gratis in a 5-month intensive Hebrew course held in ulpanim. The primary purpose of the ulpan is to help newcomers integrate into the social and cultural life in the new country through the acquisition of language skills. The newcomer is taught enough basic vocabulary and grammar as quickly as possible for simple conversation in Hebrew and for reading and writing simple texts. Some studies have shown that, on average, 70 % of the immigrants in Israel attended an ulpan during their first year in the country and almost a quarter of those who began their studies dropped out before completing them (Adler 2007). In order to learn about investment in acquiring language skills, we asked South African olim how many months they studied Hebrew formally. Figure 3 presents the results. Most of the first-generation olim attended the Hebrew ulpan:40%for4to 6 months and 30 % for longer than 6 months. Only 10 % did not learn Hebrew in any structured format, opting to “bypass” the ulpan and enter the workforce without adequate language skills. Men, in particular, chose to bypass the ulpan, possibly because, as breadwinners, the ulpan opportunity was more costly for them than it was for women (see Beenstock 1996). A case in point is Neil, who arrived in Israel in 2008: When I came, I started working straightaway. My wife went to the ulpan and now she’s doing another one… I want to speak more Hebrew, but don’t have time to go to the ulpan.It’s important to learn, anyone who comes to Israel, it is important to attend the ulpan.InRa’anana, you can manage… without going [to the ulpan], but as long as you live here, if you don’t speak Hebrew, you’ll be like a stranger in the country (current age, 37).

For olim arriving without any knowledge of the language, the ulpan was a very important first step that provided them with basic local language proficiency. The case of Megan, who arrived in Israel in 2007, illustrates this point.

Fig. 3 Studying Hebrew in a structured way Linguistic Assimilation of Jewish South African Immigrants

Megan: Yes, I came to Israel knowing nothing, not even knowing an aleph [first letter in the Hebrew alphabet], and when I finished the ulpan …I can read and write, but I don’t understand all, I can’t understand everything, but I can read and I can write. So I’ve learnt a lot, I’d known nothing [before coming to Israel] (current age, 42). Learning a new language at an older age is considered very difficult because language acquisition is bound by age-linked maturational constraints. These constraints are especially marked in the case of Hebrew because its grammar and syntax are not always easy for English speakers to grasp. These difficulties are evident in Megan’s account of her ulpan experiences. Megan: Yes, it’s important for me [to study Hebrew] and I must, but it’s difficult. I’m learning slowly, and I’m doing what I can. I think that for English-speaking people, it’s more difficult than French or Spanish. (Q: Why?) They’ve got the masculine and feminine, whereas we don’t, a chair is a chair, when in French or in Spanish, a chair can be a female or a male like in Hebrew. For us to even understand that, and understand where that is coming from… I find it difficult. As we shall see next, although ulpan attendance does not always result in a good command of the language upon completion, it provides the minimum basis on which immigrants’ linguistic skills progress over time.

Hebrew Proficiency in Israel

To learn more about levels of Hebrew proficiency, we asked respondents to rate their command of Hebrew on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (low) to 5 (high) with regard to their speaking, reading, and writing. Figure 4 presents the percentages of those reporting their language abilities as “good” or “very good.” In order to highlight generational differences, we compared the linguistic attainments of South African

Fig. 4 Current Hebrew proficiency, first generation and 1.5 generation R. Raijman olim arriving as adults (the first generation) and at younger ages (the 1.5 generation). The data show marked generational differences in Hebrew levels between the two groups. While the latter displays almost universal competence in the local language, the former shows some variation in the different linguistic dimensions. First-generation olim display a linguistic hierarchy in which speaking is the easiest (79 % reported good/very good levels), followed by reading (62 %) and writing (51 %), which is the hardest skill. Differential generational linguistic attainments can be explained by two factors. First, child immigrants are socialized in the host country’s educational system, so they develop language skills like native speakers. Second, in older immigrants, the ability and motivation to acquire grammar and vocabulary steadily decline (cf. Stevens 1999).

Coping with Linguistic Disadvantages

We also asked first-generation olim reporting lower levels of Hebrew proficiency to what degree their inadequate Hebrew skills disrupted their everyday life. The question is apt because competence in the local language is crucial not only for economic success, but also for other aspects of daily life, such as consumption, use of media, use of public services, and contacts and negotiations with societal institutions, such as schools and health care facilities. In the survey, about 60 % reported that their limited command of Hebrew made them feel handicapped in various ways. The olim felt their linguistic disadvantage mostly in interactions with state institutions (banks, schools, kupat holim8) and in the workplace. For example, filling out forms and signing contracts were stressful tasks, as illustrated in the case of Carla. I don’t think you can live in a country without knowing the language. For example, there are things that really scare me … If I have to sign a printed form in Hebrew… I can read, it will take me a long time, I’ll read it because I have to sign it, but if I don’t know the language how can I sign these forms? … If you’re not thoroughly familiar with the language, there’s a problem. Language is a-b-c—and it’s hard to learn a language at an older age… language is important (arrived in 1985; current age, 47) Likewise, for Lesley, the interaction with bank officials when she asked for a mortgage to buy a house “reminds” her about the need to have command of the local language. When we went to the bank to get a mortgage to buy an apartment…[we] still did not have enough language[skills] to understand everything. We had friends and we asked where they took out the mortgage, and they said from Bank…,so we went [to that bank] but… didn’t understand the interest rates and fines, didn’t understand anything. We signed, and that’sit… We received by mail a letter from the attorney, but we didn’t understand and didn’t know anything… and there was nobody to help us (arrived in 1989; current age, 46) For many olim, their lack of linguistic skills is a serious drawback in the workplace. Take for example the case of David, who arrived in 1963 and did not

8 Kupat Holim is an Israeli health insurance company that provides health services to Israeli citizens. Linguistic Assimilation of Jewish South African Immigrants attend the ulpan but, as he told us, learned Hebrew “in the street.” He is very concerned about his limited Hebrew skills, which have become a barrier to updating his professional skills. My boss always complains and gets mad that I cannot read [specific professional literature] in Hebrew… but I always find [the information] in English… Q: Does it bother you? Yes, of course, I’d like [to read in Hebrew] … Ican’t read books. I read only in English … I understand the language but …I did not take the opportunity to study in the ulpan… (arrived in 1963; current age, 64)

Other South African olim reported feeling at a disadvantage vis-à-vis Israeli workers who have a good command of the language. Daniela feels embarrassed that it is difficult for her to be efficient at work given her lack of Hebrew skills even though she arrived in 1988. For simple things in everyday life, I’ll get along just with English, I’ll manage. [In Israel] people like and want to speak English. But not at work… It’s problematic… I feel that for others it’s easier to integrate and understand. [At work] I don’t understand everything the first time they tell me… It could be in my head, but I can also feel that people talk [about my lack of language abilities] behind my back… Bottom line, [for Israelis] it’s easier to talk with a client and explain… The language is important to sell and explain things correctly… I have to break my teeth… I feel very limited in front of one who was born here (arrived in 1988; current age, 39)

Thus, salaried employees without a good command of Hebrew (like David and Daniela) find this lack a barrier to good job performance, which adversely affects their chances of promotion. By contrast, those who are self-employed or business owners can overcome their lack of Hebrew skills by hiring native Hebrew speakers as employees or working in a sector in which English is an asset. They do not see their lack of Hebrew skills as a drawback. A case in point is Warren, who arrived in Israel in 1979 and currently runs his own business. (Laughs)IamanIsraeliwhodoesnotspeakHebrewwell… and mainly because in our business, we do most of our work in English… I have no need, really. I have a secretary that if I have something to do with Hebrew, she does it for me eventually… I define myself as an Israeli who manages to live here and am very happy (arrived in 1979; current age, 69) English is an international language that, unlike other foreign languages, is widely spoken and understood in Israeli society; this too is a factor that reduces the motivation of English-speaking adult newcomers to acquire or improve their Hebrew skills (Beenstock 1996). For some olim, the very existence of a large and residentially concentrated English-speaking community and the fact that English is widely spoken in Israeli society become potential disincentives for improving their Hebrew skills. I regret I cannot read Hebrew better so I could be more involved in what happens in Israel. I read [the daily] Haaretz (English edition) and [the daily R. Raijman

English edition] Jerusalem Post... I can manage with English everywhere….I think so. People in Israel are very excited to talk to you in English. Everyone wants to practice their English. So I think you can get by in Israel with just English (Warren, arrived in 1979; current age, 69) Some olim are aware of the consequences of linguistic enclosure for their chances of improving their Hebrew skills, but they also see the beneficial aspects as it helps them integrate socially. A case in point is Peter, who lives in Ra’anana, a city where more than 10 % of all of Israel’s South African olim are concentrated. Q: Can you get by only in English? In Ra’anana? Yes you don’t need any Hebrew anywhere. On Saturdays, I don’t speak a word of Hebrew besides Shabbat shalom… If I went to live in [another place] for a year or so, I’m sure my Hebrew would improve. But in Ra’anana…there is an English majority. I can do everything only in English… It’s good and not good… I said initially, if you want to succeed [in the new country] you must do it together with people who understand you… (arrived in 1997; current age, 36) Some olim are critical of their counterparts who seem to get along in the country without knowledge of the local language. For them, command of Hebrew is not only important for economic and instrumental reasons, but is a precondition for understanding the Israeli culture and being part of the new society. Idon’t think we have the right to immigrate to Israel and say ‘I’ll get alonginEnglish’. Q: Why? Because to get in, to be part of the society and understand the culture and mentality, you have to speak Hebrew. You want to be like everyone else… Youcannoteverbelikeeveryoneelse, because still people ask me ‘Where are you from?’ because of my accent… I will always be different, but I have to understand the Israeli mind. I don’t think you can live in a country without knowing the language. (Carla, arrived in 1985; current age, 47). I’m not like many South Africans. I don’t expect Israelis to talk to me in English, I don’t think that because I live in the ghetto of Ra’anana, in the bank people should talk to me in English. I don’t think I have this right, not at the bank, not at the Kuppat Holim, or the Ministry of Interior and even in the garage when I take the car for a test. I think that in these places I have to speak Hebrew… I think that if you don’ttrytospeakthe language of the people, then you put yourself outside… This [knowing the language] is part of entering the society. (Shelly, arrived in 1986; current age, 43) To summarize, the analysis of language proficiency among the first generation of South African olim reveals a rather moderate process of linguistic assimilation. The medium levels of Hebrew ability in the first generation may reflect a tendency to belong to an English language “ghetto,” which reduces the need and opportunity to use Hebrew. In addition, the fact that English is a lingua franca that is widely spoken, understood, and prized in Israel explains the slow process Linguistic Assimilation of Jewish South African Immigrants of language acquisition. Next, we analyze the factors affecting levels of Hebrew proficiency.

Explaining Hebrew Proficiency in the First Generation

In this subsection, we use the theoretical model outlined at the beginning of this section to identify the factors affecting Hebrew proficiency among first-generation olim. The model suggests the following conceptual and empirical equation that was estimated through an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression in which the dependent variable is level of Hebrew proficiency: HEBREW PROFICIENCY 0 f (Incentives: age at migration, labor market position (blue-collar jobs, white-collar jobs, unemployed and out of the labor force (reference category); Exposure: level of Hebrew proficiency before arrival, number of months attending Hebrew courses in Israel, years since migration, marital status, children under 18 years oldlivingathome,andpercentageofEnglish-speakingolimresidinginthe neighborhood, plus a set of dummy variables representing the ethnic composition of one’ssocialnetworks(“most friends are Israelis,”“most friends are South African or English-speaking”); Efficiency: education; reasons for migration;Israeliidentity).Table2 presents the results of the OLS model and shows the unstandardized coefficients and standard errors, as well as the standardized coefficients for the variables in the model. For parsimony, we present only the significant coefficients. The data show that, in line with the economic motivation hypothesis, Hebrew proficiency is higher among olim who arrived at younger ages, as these individuals are better able to acquire language than their older counterparts. After controlling for all relevant variables, the coefficients for labor market position were not significant. In other words, we found no differences in Hebrew proficiency between those working in professional, technical, and managerial occupations and those who work in service occupations, clerical, or blue-collar jobs or are out of the labor force. In accordance with the exposure hypothesis, Hebrew proficiency is higher among olim who have been in the country longer and tend to have social networks that include Israeli friends. Likewise, language training, in either the country of origin or of destination, affects language proficiency. Specifically, olim who arrive in Israel with language skills and those attending ulpan are likely to report higher levels of Hebrew proficiency than those who have not invested in such types of language training. After controlling for all relevant factors, gender9 and family characteristics (ethnic origin of partner and presence of children under 18 years old) had no significant effects on Hebrew proficiency.10 In accordance with the efficiency hypothesis, we found a positive correlation between language acquisition and education. The better-educated individuals may be more able to learn either because they have accumulated more learning skills or because they are inherently more able. Finally, those who came pulled by ideological reasons

9 Previous studies have suggested that women are disadvantaged relative to men in language proficiency because they are less likely to participate in the labor market. However, South African Jewish women in Israel have very high levels of labor force participation. 10 These findings are similar to those of Chiswick and Miller (1998). R. Raijman

Table 2 OLS regression predicting Hebrew proficiency of South African immigrants in Israel; unstandardized coefficients (standard errors) and standardized coefficients

Incentives Age at migration −0.03 (0.004) −0.225 Exposure Hebrew proficiency before arrival 0.44 (0.03) 0.45 Years since migration 0.02 (0.003) 0.18 Israeli friends (half or more) 0.30 (0.07) 0.15 Studied Hebrew for <6 months −0.15 (0.06) −0.07 Efficiency Years of formal education 0.03 (0.01) 0.09 Motivations for migration Ideological factors 0.05 (0.02) 0.06 Attachment to host society Israeli identity 0.13 (0.03) 0.14 R2 0.54 N 593

and those who felt Israeli to a great extent were more likely to report higher levels of Hebrew proficiency.

Discussion and Conclusions

This study has focused on one of the most important aspects of immigrants’ integration: the complex process of host society language acquisition. Given that English is widely spoken and understood in Israel, South Africans and other English-speaking groups that settled in Israel might be under much less social pressure than other Linguistic Assimilation of Jewish South African Immigrants immigrant groups to invest in learning the local language. In addition, given that English plays a central role in the Israeli society and the labor market, some interviewees emphasized the instrumental advantages associated with a good command of the English language. Israelis have very positive attitudes toward English. The ability to speak it is prized and considered a symbol of status in the Israeli society (see also Spolsky and Shohamy 1999). Therefore, first-generation South African olim in Israel might be under much less social pressure to improve their Hebrew skills than other immigrant groups who speak other languages. Moreover, given the status of English as an international language, our case study may have important implications for understanding the expected linguistic assimilation trajectories of Anglophone immigrants in other non-English-speaking societies and their attitudes to the host languages of their adopted countries. Our analysis reaffirms most of the findings established in prior studies of linguistic assimilation. Although proficiency levels are conditional on age at arrival, we found clear and unambiguous evidence that Hebrew proficiency rises sharply with exposure to the Israeli society (years in the country and social contacts with Israelis) and exposure to training in the Hebrew language (in the country of origin or destination). The human and social capital of the olim also plays an important part in structuring the process of language acquisition. Levels of Hebrew proficiency are much higher for those with higher levels of education. There is also a positive synergism between language acquisition and reasons for migrating and attachment to the host country. Those who immigrated to Israel for ideological reasons and those who define themselves strongly as Israeli tend to report higher levels of Hebrew proficiency. The data reveal that, although most first-generation immigrants report relatively moderate levels of language proficiency, Hebrew has not become their primary language. Their still extensive use of English reflects the higher level of ethnic enclosure of the first generation, also reflected in their patterns of residence and the composition of their social networks. This ethnic enclosure can retard the acquisition of Hebrew skills even if it eases other aspects of life. Considering these findings in light of the empirical evidence that proficiency in the dominant language of host societies is associated with higher socioeconomic outcomes, we suggest that public policy attention should be focused on extending the periods of language training over the minimum 6 months currently offered by state organizations. This goal could be achieved by enhancing immigrants’ interest in learning and improving their Hebrew proficiency and financing advanced language courses of varying intensities and on a variety of topics associated with the specific cultural and social needs of olim. These courses could be organized not only through government agencies, but also by community organizations and particularly by employers as part of the on-the- job training process for new immigrants. In this way, olim would be encouraged to remain in close contact with language teaching frameworks that can broaden and deepen the linguistic assimilation of the first generation.

Acknowledgments This research was funded by the J. Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies and Research at Cape Town University in South Africa. I am very grateful to all interviewed partners who shared their time and life histories with us. I thank Research Success Technologies, which under the direction of Dr. Ezra Kopelowitz oversaw the fieldwork required for the interviews. I wish to thank Miri Schwartzvald, Orit Avital, and Ariane Ophir for their help with data preparation and analysis. R. Raijman 2010 – 2010 2000 – nd do not include labor 1989 1948 – 0.6 %0.1 %0.1 % 0.3 %0.0 % 0.1 % 4.3 % 0.0 % 1.6 % 0.0 % 0.1 % 0.0 % 1999 1980 – – – – – 1979 1990 – 1971 1972 – 1960 1961 – arrival (these figures relate to immigrants arriving under the Law of Return a 1951 1952 – ) 687,624 297,138 427,828 267,580 956,319 153,833 3,075,229 284,907 Appendix N total 48.4 % 35.8 % 37.9 % 68.5 % 84.9 % 46.1 % 59.8 % 60.6 % total 13.6 % 48.3 % 38.5 % 7.2 % 5.1 % 18.6 % 17.4 % 13.4 % Sudan 2.3 % 5.9 % 0.7 % 0.2 % 0.0 % 0.2 % 1.2 % 0.1 % — Pakistan 0.3 % 1.8 % 3.1 % 1.3 % 0.2 % 1.0 % 0.9 % 0.5 %

1 total 34.6 % 12.5 % 13.1 % 7.3 % 6.4 % 9.4 % 14.9 % 11.0 % – — – — IranIndia 3.2 % 5.3 % 4.6 % 3.6 % 5.5 % 2.5 % 0.6 % TurkeySyria 5.0 % 0.4 % 2.3 % 0.6 % 3.3 % 0.7 % 1.2 % 0.3 % 0.1 % 1.4 % 2.0 % 0.4 % MoroccoTunisiaOther Africa 4.1 % 0.0 1.9 % % 32.3 % 0.0 7.9 % % 30.5 % 0.2 2.7 % % 2.9 % 0.2 0.8 % % 0.3 % 0.1 0.1 % % 2.5 % 0.1 1.3 % % 8.8 % 0.1 1.8 % % 0.9 % 0.0 0.7 % % LebanonIraqYemenUSSR Asian Republics (Uzbekistan and Georgia)Other Asia 0.0 %AlgeriaEthiopiaSouth 0.0 Africa %LibyaEgypt 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 17.9 % 7.0 % 0.3 % 0.2 % 5.2 % 1.0 % 0.4 % 0.5 % 0.0 0.6 % % 0.0 % 0.0 0.1 % 0.8 % % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.1 1.2 % % 2.4 4.5 % 0.0 0.3 % % 0.4 % % 0.0 % 0.1 3.0 % % 8.7 0.7 % 0.0 0.9 % % % 0.8 0.8 % % 0.6 0.1 2.1 % % % 0.4 0.1 % % 0.1 4.1 0.3 % % % 0.3 1.2 % % 11.0 % 2.3 % 0.1 0.9 % % 2.8 % 0.6 % 0.0 % 0.8 10.2 % % 0.7 % 1.2 % 0.0 % Appendix 1 Grand total ( Asia migrants) Period of immigration 1948 Percentual distribution of immigrants by country of birth and period of Europe Africa igitcAsmlto fJws ot fia Immigrants African South Jewish of Assimilation Linguistic (continued)

Period of immigration 1948–1951 1952–1960 1961–1971 1972–1979 1990–1999 1980–1989 1948–2010 2000–2010

Austria 0.4 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.0 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.1 % Italy 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.2 % 0.3 % 0.1 % 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.2 % Nordic countries 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.2 % 0.3 % 0.1 % 0.8 % 0.2 % 0.1 % Bulgaria 5.4 % 0.6 % 0.2 % 0.0 % 0.4 % 0.1 % 1.4 % 0.2 % Belgium 0.0 % 0.1 % 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.1 % 0.5 % 0.2 % 0.4 % USSR 1.2 % 4.6 % 6.9 % 51.2 % 80.8 % 19.3 % 36.9 % 50.7 % Germany 1.2 % 0.5 % 0.7 % 0.8 % 0.2 % 1.1 % 0.6 % 0.4 % Netherlands 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.3 % 0.4 % 0.1 % 0.8 % 0.2 % 0.2 % Hungary 2.1 % 3.3 % 0.6 % 0.4 % 0.2 % 0.7 % 1.0 % 0.4 % Yugoslavia (former) 1.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.0 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.4 % 0.1 % Greece 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.0 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.0 % UK 0.3 % 0.5 % 1.5 % 2.3 % 0.5 % 4.6 % 1.0 % 1.5 % Spain 0.0 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.0 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.1 % Poland 15.5 % 13.3 % 3.4 % 2.3 % 0.3 % 1.8 % 5.6 % 0.4 % Czechoslovakia (former) 2.7 % 0.3 % 0.6 % 0.3 % 0.1 % 0.3 % 0.8 % 0.1 % France 0.4 % 0.6 % 1.9 % 2.0 % 1.1 % 4.9 % 1.7 % 5.1 % Romania 17.2 % 10.9 % 20.1 % 6.9 % 0.6 % 9.5 % 9.0 % 0.4 % Switzerland 0.0 % 0.1 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.5 % 0.1 % 0.3 % Other Europe 0.2 % 0.0 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.1 % America and Oceania—total 0.6 % 2.3 % 9.9 % 16.8 % 3.5 % 25.6 % 6.9 % 14.9 % Australia, New Zealand 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.2 % 0.5 % 0.1 % 0.6 % 0.2 % 0.2 % Uruguay 0.0 % 0.1 % 0.4 % 0.8 % 0.1 % 1.3 % 0.3 % 0.6 % Central America 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.3 % (continued)

Period of immigration 1948–1951 1952–1960 1961–1971 1972–1979 1990–1999 1980–1989 1948–2010 2000–2010

Argentina 0.1 % 1.0 % 2.7 % 4.9 % 0.9 % 6.9 % 1.9 % 4.1 % USA 0.2 % 0.5 % 4.4 % 7.8 % 1.6 % 12.3 % 3.1 % 6.1 % Brazil 0.0 % 0.3 % 0.6 % 0.7 % 0.2 % 1.1 % 0.4 % 0.9 % Venezuela 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.0 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.2 % Mexico 0.0 % 0.1 % 0.2 % 0.3 % 0.1 % 0.6 % 0.1 % 0.3 % Paraguay 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % Chile 0.0 % 0.1 % 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.1 % 0.7 % 0.2 % 0.3 % Colombia 0.1 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.3 % 0.1 % 0.4 % Canada 0.0 % 0.1 % 0.5 % 0.8 % 0.2 % 1.2 % 0.3 % 0.7 % Other countries 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.7 % Not known 2.9 % 1.1 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.0 % 0.3 % 0.8 % 0.0 % Grand total 687,624 297,138 427,828 267,580 956,319 153,833 3,075,229 284,907

Source: Table 4.4 Statistical Abstract of Israel 2011 .Raijman R. Linguistic Assimilation of Jewish South African Immigrants

Appendix 2

Characteristics of participants (in-depth interviews) (no additional details are given in order to maintain the anonymity of the interviewees)

Number Alias Generation Gender Year of immigration Current age Marital status

1 David 1 Male 1963 64 Divorce +3 2 Shannon 1 Female 1972 61 Married +3 3 Ora 1 Female 1981 49 Married +3 4 Rachel 1 Female 1971 61 Married +1 5 Warren 1 Male 1979 69 Divorce +3 6 Leslie 1 Female 1989 46 Married +2 7 Daniela 1 Female 1988 39 Married +2 8 Stacey 1 Female 1977 58 Married +2 9 Shelly 1 Female 1986 43 Married +3 10 Jack 1 Male 1986 52 Married +3 11 Carla 1 Female 1985 47 Married +3 12 Samantha 1 Female 1987 54 Married +3 Robert Male 55 13 Megan 1 Female 2007 42 Married +2 14 Jodie 1 Female 1998 49 Living with partner 15 Peter 1 Male 1997 36 Married +4 16 Ryan 1 Male 2003 25 Engaged 17 Neil 1 Male 2008 37 Married +3

References

Adler, S. (2007). Training and retraining programs in Israel. Paper presented at ICSW Conference, Jerusalem, Israel. http://www.euro.centre.org/Jerusalem/files/Adler_Presentation.pdf. Beenstock, M. (1996). The acquisition of language skills by immigrants: The case of Hebrew in Israel. International Migration, 4(1), 3–30. Ben-Rafael, E., Olshtain, E., & Geijst, I. (1998). Identity and language: The social insertion of Soviet Jews in Israel. In E. Leshem & J. Shuval (Eds.), Immigration to Israel (pp. 333–356). New Brunswick: Transaction. Ben-Rafael, E., Lyubansky, M., Glockner, O., Harris, P., Schoeps, J., Israel, Y., & Jasper, W. (2006). Building a Diaspora: Russian Jews in Israel, Germany and USA. Leiden: Brill. Chiswick, B. R. (1998). Hebrew language usage: Determinants and effects on earnings among immigrants in Israel. Journal of Population Economics, 11, 253–271. Chiswick, B., & Miller, P. (1995). The endogeneity between language and Earnings: An international analysis. Journal of Labour Economics, 13(2), 246–288. Chiswick, B., & Miller, P. (1998). English language fluency among immigrants in the United States. Research in Labor Economics, 17, 151–200. Chiswick, B., & Miller, P. (2001). A model of destination-language acquisition: Application to male immigrants in Canada. Demography, 38(3), 391–409. Cohen, Y. (2002). From haven to heaven: Changing patterns of immigration to Israel. In D. Levy & Y. We is s (Eds.) , Challenging ethnic citizenship: German and Israeli perspectives on immigration (pp. 36–56). New York: Berghahn Books. R. Raijman

Dubb, A. (1994). Jewish South Africans: A sociological view of the Johannesburg community. Grahamstown: Institute of Social and Economic Research, Rhodes University. Espenshade, T. J., & Fu, H. (1997). An analysis of English-language proficiency among U.S. immigrants. American Sociological Review, 62(2), 288–305. Espinosa, K., & Massey, D. S. (1997). Determinants of English proficiency among Mexican migrants to the United States. International Migration Review, 31(1), 28–50. Horowitz, S., & Kaplan, D. E. (2001). The Jewish exodus from the New South Africa: Realities and implications. International Migration, 39(3), 3–32. Hurtado, A., & Vega, L. (2004). Shift happens: Spanish and English transmission between parents and their children. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 137–155. Kaplan Center for Jewish Studies. (2006). The Jews of South Africa 2005—Report on a research study. Cape Town: University of Cape Town. Kosmin, B. A., Goldberg, J., Shain, M., & Bruk, S. (1999). Jews of the ‘New South Africa’: Highlights of the 1998 National Survey of South African Jews, JPR Report. Cape Town: Institute for Jewish Policy Research and Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies: University of Cape Town. Mesch, G. (2003). Language proficiency among new immigrants: The role of human capital and societal conditions. The case of immigrants from the FSU in Israel. Sociological Perspectives, 46(1), 41–58. Miller, S. I., & Gatta, J. L. (2006). The use of mixed methods models and designs in the human sciences: Problems and prospects. Quality & Quantity, 40(4), 595–610. Raijman, R., & Kemp, A. (2010). The new immigration to Israel: Becoming a de-facto immigration state in the 1990s. In U. Segal, N. Mayadas, & D. Elliot (Eds.), Immigration worldwide (pp. 227–243). New York: Oxford University Press. Raijman, R., & Semyonov, M. (1995). Modes of labor market incorporation and occupational cost among immigrants to Israel. International Migration Review, 29(2), 375–393. Raijman, R., & Semyonov, M. (1997). Gender, ethnicity and immigration: Double-disadvantage and triple-disadvantage among recent immigrant women in the Israeli labor market. Gender and Society, 11(1), 108–125. Remennick, L. (2003a). From Russian to Hebrew via HebRush: Intergenerational patterns of language use among former Soviet immigrants in Israel. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(5), 431–453. Remennick, L. (2003b). The 1.5 generation of Russian immigrants in Israel: Integration and sociocultural retention. Diaspora, 12(1), 39–66. Remennick, L. (2003c). What does integration mean? Social insertion of Russian immigrants in Israel. Journal of International and Integration, 4(1), 23–49. Remennick, L. (2004). Language acquisition, ethnicity and social integration among former Soviet immigrants of the 1990 in Israel. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(3), 431–454. Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E. (1999). The languages of Israel. Policy, ideology and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Stevens, G. (1992). The social and demographic context of language use in the United States. American Sociological Review, 57, 171–185. Stevens, G. (1999). Age at immigration and second language proficiency among foreign-born adults. Language in Society, 28, 555–578. Van Tubergen, F., & Kalmijn, M. (2009). Language proficiency and usage among immigrants in the Netherlands: Incentives or opportunities? European Sociological Review, 25(2), 169–182. Van Tubergen, F., & Wierenga, M. (2011). The language acquisition of male immigrants in a multilingual destination: Turks and Moroccans in Belgium. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(7), 1039–1057.