108 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
Lithuanian Saturday Schools in Chicago: Student Proficiency, Generational Shift, and Community Involvement
Aurelija Tamošiūnaitė Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania
Abstract This article explores the Lithuanian heritage speakers’ community in the United States. It aims to look at the correlations between generation or age of arrival in the United States, and self- reported language proficiency. Usage of Internet materials in Lithuanian and involvement in Lithuanian activities are also addressed. The case study contrasts findings from two different sources: a survey conducted in two Chicago-area Lithuanian Saturday schools in 2007 and an Internet Survey administered to Lithuanian-American middle, high school, and college students via Survey Monkey in 2008. The empirical data indicate that Lithuanian heritage speakers form a diverse linguistic community having different linguistic competences in the heritage language. Consistent with the findings of other heritage languages (Carreira & Kagan, 2011), Lithuanian heritage speakers exhibit high oral proficiency but lack writing and reading skills. The correlation between the age of arrival and linguistic competence in Lithuanian was also observed: the younger the age of arrival in the United States, the weaker competence in Lithuanian was reported. Findings on Lithuanian heritage speakers’ involvement in the heritage community indicate that most of the respondents are highly involved in community activities. All of the third-generation (G3) respondents reported their involvement in Lithuanian Saturday schools, which indicates that Lithuanian education is still actively promoted among G3 heritage speakers.
Introduction The U.S. Census of 2000 counted 38,295 Lithuanian speakers living in the United States. However, the American Community Survey (2006-2008) indicates an increase to 41,622, likely related to a recent influx of new immigrants from Lithuania. In the 2006-2008 estimates, 90 percent of Lithuanian speakers in the United States declared they spoke English “very well” or “well,” and only ten percent “not well” or “not at all.” Given that proficiency in English typically suggests little or no knowledge of the heritage language (Potowski & Carreira, 2010; Rumbaut, 2004, among others), the data point to a language shift from Lithuanian to English among Lithuanian speakers1 in the United States. Lithuanian heritage speakers form a comparatively small heritage language community, lacking economic power and visibility in the United States in comparison to other larger heritage language communities such as Arabic, Spanish, Chinese, Polish, and Russian, among many others. In opposition to Spanish, Chinese, Arabic or the more frequently spoken Slavic languages (Russian or Polish), Lithuanian is currently taught at two universities in the United States.2 There are no full-time K-12 programs created for Lithuanian heritage speakers, nor are there any dual- immersion programs. Therefore, due to the lack of instructional opportunities, most Lithuanian heritage speakers do not have opportunities to achieve higher linguistic proficiency (cf. Kagan,
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
109 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
2005). Thus, maintenance of Lithuanian in the United States, similar to the maintenance of other less commonly taught heritage languages (Peyton, Ranard, & McGinnis, 2001; Gambhir, 2001; Wiley, 2001), strongly depends on the efforts of the Lithuanian American community, including Saturday schools and families. In order to shed more light on Lithuanian in the United States, this article explores the Lithuanian heritage learner community via two surveys. First, I offer short descriptions of the Lithuanian language and the basic patterns of Lithuanian immigration, and then provide an overview of the research on Lithuanian community schools in the United States. The Lithuanian Language Lithuanian is the official language of the Republic of Lithuania, protected by the Law of the Official Language adopted by the Seimas [Parliament] on January 31, 1995 and became one of the official languages of European Union in 2005. Lithuanian and Latvian are the two living Indo-European languages that belong to the Baltic branch. According to 20013 Census of the Lithuanian Republic, Lithuanian is the native language of 82 percent of Lithuanian citizens4 (Lithuanian Department of Statistics, 2002). Lithuanian is also spoken by Lithuanian emigrants in other countries, including Latvia, Belorus', the Russian Federation, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Australia, and the United States (Zinkevičius, 1998, p. 320). A highly inflected language with a complex nominal and verbal morphology, mobile stress, and free word order (Zinkevičius, 1998, p. 28; Subačius, 2005), Lithuanian is divided into two large dialect groups: Lowland Lithuanian (žemaičių tarmė) and Highland Lithuanian (aukštaičių tarmė). Both of these groups are in turn divided into smaller sub-dialect or sub-sub-dialect groups. Standard Lithuanian is based on South West Highland sub-dialect (pietinių vakarų aukštaičių šnekta), which emerged at the end of the nineteenth century and was closely related to the Lithuanian national awakening. The standard Lithuanian writing system uses a modified Roman script. Lithuanian Immigration to the United States Lithuanian immigration to the United States is usually discussed in terms of three waves (Tumėnas, 2008; Kuzmickaitė, 2003). Lithuanians started immigrating to the United States in the eighteenth century, but the first major wave occurred at the turn of the twentieth century. The main reasons for emigration at that time included poverty, the lack of industry in Lithuania, and unwillingness to serve in the Russian military (Fainhauz, 1991); most Lithuanian immigrants came from lower socioeconomic strata. According to Fainhauz, during the period between 1864 and 1914, approximately 447,642 Lithuanians came to the United States. (1991, p. 18). The largest concentrations of Lithuanians were in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Connecticut, and Baltimore (Fainhauz, 1991, p. 19). Most of them were employed in coal mines, on the railroads, and in the stockyards. According to Fainhauz, at the turn of the twentieth century, ‘Lithuanian’ was largely synonymous with ‘Catholic’ (1991, p. 28). Because of their strong religious affiliation, Lithuanians in almost every large city created parishes and built churches. These parishes served both religious and social needs through mutual aid societies, choirs, theaters, women’s clubs, and schools (Kučas, 1975, pp. 33–34). Between 1871 and 1900, there were thirty-nine Lithuanian parishes in the United States, including seven created in conjunction with Polish worshippers (Kučas, 1975, p.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
110 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
78). Not all of the parishes, according to Kučas, were able to provide full-time schooling; most offered only Saturday or Sunday schools, with a priest teaching Lithuanian language and history (Kučas, 1975, p. 79). However, by the end of the nineteenth century there were already three full-time Lithuanian schools operating, one each in Pittston (Pennsylvania), Chicago, and Pittsburgh. These parish schools flourished during the first three decades of the twentieth century but gradually declined (Masilionis & Petersonienė, 2000), mainly due to financial difficulties, decreasing rates of Lithuanian immigration, increasing secularization of Lithuanian immigrants, and their assimilation to the mainstream American society (Kemėšis, 1934). The second, larger wave of immigration consisted mostly of Lithuanian refugees arriving after World War II. In 1944 when Lithuania was occupied by the Soviet Union, approximately 60,000 Lithuanians fled to the West (Kučas, 1975, p. 297). After living for several years in displaced persons' camps in Austria and Germany, almost 30,000 of them came to the United States between 1949 and 1952 (Sinochkina, 2001, p. 345). While still in the camps, the Lithuanian resistance organization The Supreme Committee for the Liberation of Lithuania published a document, The Lithuanian Charter, which set priorities and values for Lithuanian immigrants. Lithuanian language and education were to play a large role in the formation of Lithuanian identity, as made clear in some of the statements in The Charter: “Language is the strongest tie of the ethnic community. The Lithuanian language is the national honor of all Lithuanians” and “School is the source of the national spirit. It is the lofty duty of each Lithuanian to be a supporter of Lithuanian schools” (The Lithuanian Charter, 1949). The Charter is still one of the main documents of the Lithuanian World Community, an organization founded to unify Lithuanians around the world. The importance of language and Lithuanian schools set in The Charter indicates that the maintenance of language was very important among the immigrants of this wave. The ideology introduced by The Lithuanian Charter strongly influenced the concept of what it means to be “Lithuanian” for the second-wave immigrants: to be “Lithuanian” meant to create Lithuanian families, support Lithuanian schools, and maintain (and pass on) the Lithuanian language. The second wave of immigration started establishing more Lithuanian Saturday schools to provide instruction in Lithuanian language, literature, dances, and folk-art, i.e., those subjects that would contribute to the maintenance of Lithuanian culture. The main purpose of these schools was to serve the needs of the Lithuanian community and to provide educational and cultural enrichment for children of Lithuanian descent. Today, Lithuanian schools in the United States are still financially supported by parents, as well as by the Lithuanian Foundation. The Lithuanian Education Council in the USA is a US- based organization that supervises most Lithuanian community schools by providing curriculum guidelines, teacher education and related activities. The Lithuanian Foundation has no relationship to the Lithuanian government. Starting in 1988 and increasing after Lithuania gained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1990, a new wave of Lithuanian immigrants came to the United States. It is estimated that approximately 10,000–20,000 Lithuanians arrived during this wave (Kuzmickaitė, 2003, p. 75) According to Kuzmickaitė (2000, 2003), these immigrants were treated as brain-drain and economic immigrants by their homeland and were not openly welcomed by established Lithuanian communities. They arrived as artists, athletes, students, patients, visitors, or
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
111 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
temporary workers (Kuzmickaitė, 2003, p. 32). Some came temporarily to work or to study and others stayed in the United States permanently. Most of the newcomers were from urban areas, belong to the upper-middle or middle class in Lithuania, and had a higher educational background (Kuzmickaitė, 2003, p. 76). Due to the expansion of communication technologies and relatively cheap air fares, third-wave Lithuanian immigrants often have stronger ties with their country of origin than previous immigrants.5 Those third wave immigrants who stay in the United States legally usually tend to send their children to Lithuania to spend summers with grandparents and other relatives (Kuzmickaitė, 2000). The time spent in a native Lithuanian-speaking environment helps foster the maintenance of Lithuanian language and culture in these children. Children of these new immigrants also constitute the majority of the schoolchildren in today’s Lithuanian Saturday schools. This indicates that the newest influx of Lithuanian immigrants is shaping the future of Lithuanian in the United States and its maintenance and transmission to future generations (Tamošiūnaitė, 2008). The importance of the new immigrants for the maintenance of heritage language has been noticed in other heritage languages as well (Potowski & Carreira, 2010). Demographic Data One of the main factors in the maintenance of a heritage language is the demographic concentration of the people speaking the same language (Alba et al., 2002, p. 472). The 2000 and 2006–2008 data on the top ten states for Lithuanian speakers are provided in Table 1. Table 1
Top Ten States with the Largest Concentration of Lithuanian Speakers Top 10 states with Lithuanian speakers, 2000 Top 10 states with Lithuanian speakers, 2006–2008 No. of Percent No. of Percent Rank State speakers of total State speakers of total 1 Illinois 10,900 28.46 Illinois 14,965 35.37 2 Florida 2,935 7.66 Florida 2,915 6.89 3 New York 2,740 7.15 New York 2,765 6.53 4 California 2,675 6.98 California 2,683 6.34 5 Massachusetts 2,535 6.61 Massachusetts 2,222 5.25 6 Pennsylvania 2,334 6.09 Michigan 1,962 4.63 7 Connecticut 2,005 5.23 Pennsylvania 1,910 4.51 8 Michigan 1,819 4.74 Connecticut 1,765 4.17 9 New Jersey 1,620 4.23 Ohio 1,334 3.15 10 Ohio 1,475 3.85 New Jersey 1,175 2.77 Entire US 38,295 100.00 Entire US 42,306 100.00 Source: U. S. Census 2000, American Community Survey, 2006–2008. The data indicate that the five states with the highest concentration of Lithuanian speakers in 2000 and 2006–2008 were the same: Illinois, Florida, New York, California, and Massachusetts.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
112 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
Due to increased immigration from Lithuania, the most significant growth of the Lithuanian- speaking population is observed in Illinois, and the state is currently home to more than one-third of the Lithuanian speakers in the United States. Most other states saw a slight decrease or an insignificant increase of Lithuanian speakers between 2000 and 2006–2008. Thus, according to the data, most Lithuanian speakers reside on the East Coast, the Midwest, and the West Coast. This concentration pattern is also reflected in the distribution of Lithuanian Saturday schools. During the 2012–2013 school year, there were 36 Lithuanian schools in the United States (Lithuanian Educational Council of the USA, 2012). The list of the top ten states with the highest concentration of Lithuanian speakers (2006–2008) and the number of Lithuanian schools in that state is presented in Table 2. Table 2
Top Ten States with Lithuanian Speakers in the U.S. and Number of Lithuanian Saturday Schools No. of No. of Rank State speakers schools 1 Illinois 14,965 7 2 Florida 2,915 2 3 New York 2,765 3 4 California 2,683 4 5 Massachusetts 2,222 1 6 Michigan 1,962 2 7 Pennsylvania 1,910 2 8 Connecticut 1,765 1 9 Ohio 1,334 4 10 New Jersey 1,175 2 Sources: for number of speakers, American Community Survey, 2006–2008 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010); for number of schools, Lithuanian Educational Council of the USA (2012).
During the 2006–2007 school year, a total of 1,787 children attended Lithuanian schools across the United States. In 2007–2008, this number rose slightly to 1,839 (data on the number of children per school were not available). The highest percentage (60 percent) of students attended schools in Illinois (1,091 students), whereas in other states (California, New York, and Massachusetts) percentages were significantly lower, constituting between five percent in Massachusetts to eight percent in California. Lithuanian Saturday schools are one of the only spaces outside of the home where young people can speak Lithuanian; therefore, the correlation between the concentration of speakers and the number of children attending Lithuanian school is highly important for language maintenance and the accessibility of Lithuanian education. Research on Lithuanian Saturday Schools in the United States Several studies have examined Lithuanian schools in the United States.6 The recent increase of immigration from Lithuania to the United Kingdom, Ireland, and other countries of the European
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
113 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
Union drew scholars’ attention to Lithuanian education in the diaspora, especially in the United States. Several studies investigated the transmission of Lithuanian language, culture, and traditions, including Karčiauskaitė (2008), Gruodytė & Liutikienė (2008), Celešiūtė (2008), and Tamošiūnaitė (2008). Karčiauskaitė (2008) examined the development of Lithuanian education in the United States. A main problem she observed was a significant gap in teaching approaches, with the Lithuanian Saturday schools being much more formal and traditional than students’ regular daily schools. According to Karčiauskaitė, this more formal approach to teaching did not attract children, and most of them were attending Lithuanian school because of their parents (2008, p. 68). Gruodytė and Liutikienė (2008) found that the transmission and maintenance of culture largely depends on family efforts. However, most of the parents they interviewed did not plan to return to Lithuania, so they had little motivation to maintain and pass their culture to their children. The authors also noted a lack of information about existing Lithuanian Saturday schools, as well as a need for updated textbooks and teaching materials that would be oriented to the heritage speakers rather than to native speakers (Gruodytė & Liutikienė 2008, p. 175). This problem mirrors the same situation mentioned by Chinese teachers in Liu (2006). Celešiūtė (2008) investigated the reasons why parents bring (or do not bring) their children to Lithuanian Saturday schools, dividing them into three groups: 1) Those not planning to return to Lithuania, who typically did not send their children to Lithuanian school; 2) Those who were undecided about returning to Lithuania—these parents are engaged in language maintenance of their children; 3) Those who were sure that they would return to live in Lithuania. Parents from this group were the most concerned about their children’s Lithuanian education (Celešiūtė, 2008, pp. 178–179). This study revealed that most parents send their children to Lithuanian school not just to improve their Lithuanian language skills, but also because of the socializing aspect: to find more friends, be in a Lithuanian-speaking environment, and to understand “the importance of the Lithuanian language” (Celešiūtė, 2008, p. 211). According to Celešiūtė, these schools unify the community, both the schoolchildren and their parents. The parents pointed out some disadvantages of Lithuanian Saturday schools: the varying proficiency of speakers mixed in the same classroom (native speakers and heritage speakers); short classes (once a week for a few hours); the lack of new, modern teaching materials; and the location of schools far from home to. Most parents stressed the importance of their children's grandparents, whom children visit during the summer in Lithuania, and who make a large impact on their grandchildren’s usage of Lithuanian (Celešiūtė, 2008, p. 213). Tamošiūnaitė (2008) focused on signs of maintenance and shift among young Lithuanian speakers in two Chicago-area Lithuanian Saturday schools, finding a negative correlation between the length of stay in the United States and the use of Lithuanian. The turning point for the shift from Lithuanian to English appeared to occur between eight and twelve years of stay. The small number of third-generation Saturday school students, and the fact that the majority of the students in both schools were first generation (G1) and first and a half generation (G1.5) heritage speakers indicates that Lithuanian is not, for the most part, maintained intergenerationally; it is only the influx of new immigrants that keeps Lithuanian active in the
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
114 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
United States, as is the case with many heritage languages (Fonacier, 2010; Potowski & Carreira, 2010; Xiao, 2010 among many others). Methodology The data for this article come from two sources: a survey conducted in two Chicago-area Lithuanian Saturday schools in 20077 and an Internet survey administered to Lithuanian- American middle, high school, and college students via Survey Monkey in fall 2008. I will refer to these two sources of data as the “LSS Study” and the “Internet Survey” respectively. Both projects aimed to look at young Lithuanian heritage speakers in the United States, their language usage with family members and friends, self-reported language proficiency, usage of Lithuanian on the Internet, and attitudes toward Lithuanian. The Internet survey used a slightly modified version of the 2007 questionnaire, which was created based on the findings of Norvilas (1990), as well as the sample of a similar study conducted by Potowski with Spanish college students in Chicago (Potowski, 2004). The first part of the questionnaire provides basic sociological information of the respondent: age, sex, place (country) of birth, and age when the respondent came to the United States. In the second part, the respondents were asked to provide the approximate age when they acquired Lithuanian and English. In the third part, the respondents had to fill in two tables with an approximate percentage of their usage of Lithuanian and English with their parents, brothers/sisters (i.e., people they live with at home), as well as grandparents, aunts and cousins. Several questions on language choice, dominant language, and Lithuanian Internet usage with multiple choice answers were also provided in this part. In the fourth part of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to provide information on their trips to Lithuania and involvement in the Lithuanian community in the United States (this part was included only in the Internet Survey). In the fifth part, respondents provided information on their parents’ place of birth (to determine which generation they belong to) and evaluated their knowledge of English and Lithuanian. In both surveys, respondents were asked to rate their overall (global) proficiency in Lithuanian and English as “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “not very good” and “poor.”8 In the Internet Survey, respondents were asked to rate their proficiency in both languages for different communication skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening) separately. In this paper, I will contrast some of the findings of both studies: self-reported language proficiency, language dominance, usage of Lithuanian on the Internet and Microsoft Skype, and involvement in Lithuanian activities.9 The usage of Lithuanian Internet, Skype and involvement in Lithuanian activities was addressed only in the Internet Survey. Thus, those data cannot be compared to the responses of the LSS Study. The expansion of the original survey (by including the questions on the use of Lithuanian on the Internet, as well as the involvement in Lithuanian activities) was done in order to assess the impact and pedagogical implications of these factors toward the maintenance and use of heritage language. As previous research has shown (Carreira & Kagan, 2011, pp. 48–49), the later the age of arrival, the higher the amount of the time spent using the Internet in the heritage language, resulting in better functional abilities in the heritage language.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
115 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
LSS Study The questionnaire was completed by eighty-two (42 female and 40 male) students. Forty-five students were from the Chicago Lithuanian School and thirty-seven from the Maironis Lithuanian School. The average age of the respondents was 14.2 years. Seventy-six percent (62 respondents) were born in Lithuania, and twenty-four percent (20) in the United States. Of those who were born in the United States, almost eighty percent of their parents were born in the United States, the remaining twenty percent were born in Lithuania, and one father was born in Germany. Of those who were born in Lithuania, the age of arrival is given in Table 3. Table 3
LSS Survey Respondents’ Age at Arrival in the U.S. Before 3 3–5 5–10 Over 10 0 % 21% 51% 28% 0 13 31 18
The majority of respondents came between the age of 5–10 (thus, they belong to G1.5 generational group), while none came before the age of 3. Both schools are Chicago-area based, and all respondents lived in Chicago or its surrounding suburbs. The generational pattern of the respondents is presented in Table 4. Table 4
LSS Survey Respondents’ Generation Generation No. (percentage) G1 18 (22%) G1.5 27 (33%) G2 21 (26%) G3 16 (19%) Total 82 (100%)
As the data indicate, all four generations10 (including G1.5) are represented in Lithuanian Saturday schools.
The Internet Survey The questionnaire was completed by seventy respondents (49 female and 21 male). Most respondents (44) live in Chicago or the surrounding suburbs (Downers Grove, Lemont, Orland Park, Riverside, Tinley Park, Wheeling); ten respondents live in Michigan (Detroit, Kalamazoo, Novi); five in Ohio (mainly Cleveland and surrounding suburbs); four in California (Los Angeles, Santa Clarita); and one in each of the following places: Albuquerque (NM), Boston (MA), Falls Church (VA), Normal (IL), New York (NY), Savannah (GA), Westminster (CO). The largest number of respondents from the Chicago area mirrors the demographic concentration of Lithuanian immigrants living in the United States.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
116 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
The average age of the respondents was 18.7. The majority of the respondents (70%, 49) were born in the United States, and 28.6 percent (20) were born in Lithuania. One respondent indicated Canada as his birthplace. Of those born in Lithuania, the average age of arrival in the United States was 12.5 years. Eleven respondents came to the United States between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one. Thus, they belong to the first generation (G1) of heritage speakers. Four respondents came before age five (G2) and five between the ages of five and eleven (G1.5). The age of arrival is presented in Table 5. Table 5
Age of Respondent’s Arrival for Internet Survey Before 3 3–5 5 –11 Over 11 0 % 20% 25% 55 % 0 4 5 11
Education in Lithuanian correlates with the respondent’s age of coming to the United States. Two respondents who came to the United States at the age of four did not attend any school in Lithuania, and two respondents who came to the United States at the age of five had attended kindergarten. Of those who immigrated between the ages of seventeen and twenty-one, most had received a full high school education in Lithuania; the remaining respondents finished, on average, six grades of schooling in Lithuania. Of those born in the United States, one respondent belongs to G2, and 49 belong to G3. Most of the respondents’ parents were born in the United States (82.65 percent), five parents were born in Lithuania, five in Germany, two in Canada and one in each of these countries: Austria, Canada, New Zealand, Philippines, and Poland. One respondent was born in Canada and belongs to G3. Respondents’ data according to generation are presented in Table 6. Table 6
Respondents’ Generation for Internet Survey Generation Number (percentage) G1 11 (16 %) G1.5 5 (6 %) G2 5 (7 %) G3 49 (71 %) Total 70 (100 %)
Findings Tamošiūnaitė (2008) presented the data according to the time spent in the United States. This article will focus on the correlation between generation, age of coming to the United States and self-reported language proficiency. In addition, the usage of Lithuanian Internet, Skype, and involvement in other Lithuanian activities will be analyzed to assess the implications that these factors have for the maintenance of heritage language.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
117 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
Self-reported Language Proficiency General Data Respondents were asked to provide their language proficiency for both Lithuanian and English. Although there might be drawbacks to such self-evaluation, since it does not establish real proficiency of Lithuanian and English, self-evaluated proficiency reflects how heritage speakers situate themselves among other heritage speakers or native Lithuanians. The following data on Lithuanian language proficiency in both surveys are provided in Figures 1 and 2 according to generation. Figure 1. LSS Survey self-reported language proficiency in Lithuanian
Figure 2. Internet Survey self-reported language proficiency in Lithuanian
In both studies, all of the G1 respondents indicated high proficiency (“excellent” or “very good”) in Lithuanian. A more diverse picture can be seen among the other generations. Although the majority of G1.5 respondents indicated high proficiency in Lithuanian, approximately 20% in each survey indicated having only a “good” knowledge of the heritage language. The percentage
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
118 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
of those who characterized their knowledge as “good” increases in the data among G2 respondents and especially G3 respondents. A few G3 respondents in both surveys indicated having “not very good” and even “poor” knowledge of Lithuanian. The data therefore significantly point to the diminishing proficiency of Lithuanian from G1.5 to G3. The Internet Survey also included data on different proficiency levels based on four different communication skills (speaking, listening, writing and reading). The findings according to generation are presented in Tables 7 through 10. Table 7
Internet Survey Self-reported Proficiency in Lithuanian (G1) G1 (n = 11) Very Not very Lithuanian Excellent good Good good Poor Total Speaking 10 (90%) 1 (10%) 11(100%) Listening 11 (100%) 11 (100%) Writing 7 (64%) 2 (18%) 2 (18%) 11 (100%) Reading 10 (90%) 1 (10%) 11 (100%)
Table 8
Internet Survey Self-reported Proficiency in Lithuanian (G1.5) G1.5 (n = 5) Very Not very Lithuanian Excellent good Good good Poor Total Speaking 2 (40%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 5 (100%) Listening 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 5 (100%) Writing 3 (60%) 2 (40%) 5 (100%) Reading 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 5 (100%)
Table 9
Internet Survey Self-reported proficiency in Lithuanian (G2) G2 (n = 5) Very Not very Lithuanian Excellent good Good good Poor Total Speaking 2 (40%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 5 (100%) Listening 3 (60%) 2 (40%) 5 (100%) Writing 1 (20%) 4 (80%) 5 (100%) Reading 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 3 (60%) 5 (100%)
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
119 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
Table 10
Internet Survey Self-reported Proficiency in Lithuanian (G3) G3 (n = 49) Not very Lithuanian Excellent Very good Good good Poor Total Speaking 3 (6%) 23 (47%) 21 (43%) 2 (4%) 49 (100%) Listening 21 (43%) 17 (35%) 11 (22%) 49 (100%) Writing 1 (2%) 12 (24.5%) 21 (43%) 12 (24.5%) 3 (6%) 49 (100%) Reading 6 (12%) 13 (27%) 21 (43%) 9 (18%) 49 (100%)
Most of the G1 heritage speakers (HS) indicated “excellent” or “very good” Lithuanian proficiency in all four skills. Only a few of them indicated “good” proficiency in Lithuanian writing. The G1.5 generation also indicated high Lithuanian proficiency, and again characterized their writing skills as “very good” or “good.” A similar pattern is observed among G2 heritage speakers. For speaking, listening and reading, most of them rated their proficiency as “excellent” or “very good.” On writing, however, four out of five respondents rated their proficiency as “good.” The third generation (G3) respondents exhibit more variation. The highest evaluated category is listening, while on speaking and reading, most respondents indicated “very good” or “good” knowledge. The most diverse responses given in the writing category: forty-three percent of respondents indicated “good” and twelve percent “very good”, while twelve percent indicated “not very good”, and six percent reported “poor” knowledge of written Lithuanian. The fact that more than fifty percent of G311 respondents evaluated their writing proficiency as “very good” or “good” might be interpreted as a positive result of the Lithuanian community’s efforts to maintain the language, as well as the result of the recent influx of new speakers.12 Most classes in Lithuanian schools are mixed in terms of students’ generation and age of arrival in the United States and therefore students in a single classroom are exposed to differing proficiency levels of Lithuanian. The face-to-face in-class interaction among generations might strengthen the self- confidence of the G3 respondents regarding their proficiency in the heritage language. On the one hand, the diversity of responses regarding the written proficiency among the G3 respondents may suggest that many of them have achieved different levels of written Lithuanian; on the other hand, it might also point to G3 respondents' uncertainty about their writing skills. The empirical data indicate that heritage speakers perceive writing in Lithuanian as their weakest modality, which confirms the findings of the National Heritage Language Survey (Carreira & Kagan, 2011, p. 50), as well as Macevičiūtė’s (2000) and Norvilas’ (1990) findings on the loss of the written register in American Lithuanian. Lithuanian heritage speakers feel most confident about listening and speaking, while most respondents characterized their reading skills as “very good” or “good”. These findings also correlate with the general observations for most heritage languages (Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Kagan & Friedman, 2003; Valdés, 2001), which identify limited writing skills in a heritage language as a defining characteristic of heritage speakers. On the other hand, from the perspective of Hornberger’s (2004, p. 158) continua model of biliteracy13 one could see proficiency in Lithuanian placed along a continuum between oral
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
120 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
(listening, speaking) and written (writing, reading) competencies, with heritage speakers of differing generations occupying various places within that continuum. The possible representation of this continuum is provided in Figure 3. Figure 3. Correlation between generation and oral-literate, oral-written continuum (Hornberger, 2004)
The continua of biliteracy are useful here to illustrate the existing complex and dynamic relationship between the heritage language speaker and their literacy (proficiency levels). On the one hand, the generations closest to G1 are situated toward closer levels of ‘literate’ and ‘written,’ while higher generations (G3 and up) are situated toward higher levels of ‘orality.’ On the other hand, the continuum points to the numerous possible correlations between generation and heritage language proficiency in terms of literacy. Different generations suggest a different relationship toward literacy; however, the experiences of each heritage speaker at different stages of his life (age of arrival, ongoing relationship to the country of origin, exposure to formal education, language use in the family, and others) might help him or her to move toward one or another end of the continua. Age of Arrival and Language Proficiency Lithuanian language proficiency also correlates with the respondent’s age of arrival in the United States. As noted in a previous study (Tamošiūnaitė, 2008), the turning point of the shift from Lithuanian to English is an eight- to twelve-year stay in the United States. However, the correlation of language proficiency with age of arrival was not addressed in that study. Several age groups were distinguished based on the reported data: those who came between the age of two and four; those who came between five and ten; those who came between eleven and sixteen, and those who came between seventeen and twenty-two. The data from both surveys were combined in order to see a more general picture. The self-evaluated Lithuanian language proficiency according to the age of arrival is provided in Figure 4.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
121 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
Figure 4. Combined surveys’ proficiency in Lithuanian and age of arrival in the U.S.
As expected, those who came to the United States at the age of seventeen and older indicated “excellent” or “very good” knowledge of Lithuanian. A similar pattern can be noticed for those who came from the age of eleven through sixteen, although one respondent in this group indicated having only a “good” knowledge of Lithuanian. Although this group is considered G1 (e.g., native speakers and recent immigrants to the United States), we see that a younger age of respondents’ arrival corresponds to a weaker sense of their linguistic performance in Lithuanian. Those who arrived in the U.S. between the age of five and eleven exhibit more variation. Although the majority of respondents rated themselves as having “excellent” or “very good” knowledge of Lithuanian, approximately 22% indicated only a “good” knowledge. Those who came to the United States between the ages of two and four (G2), also indicated quite high proficiency in Lithuanian, although more in this group indicated “good” or even “poor” knowledge. Thus, the correlation between the age of arrival and linguistic proficiency corresponds with the correlation between generation and linguistic proficiency. In addition, a correlation was found between the respondents’ age of arrival and their proficiency in four modalities (speaking, listening, writing, and reading). The Internet Survey data of self- evaluated Lithuanian language proficiency according to the age of arrival are provided in Tables 11 through 14. Table 11
Internet Survey Self-evaluated Proficiency in Lithuanian and Age of Arrival (2–4) Lithuanian Very Not very Age of arrival 2–4 Excellent good Good good Poor Total Speaking 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2 (100%) Listening 2 (100% 2 (100%) Writing 2 (100%) 2 (100%) Reading 2 (100%) 2 (100%)
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
122 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
Table 12
Internet Survey Self-evaluated Proficiency in Lithuanian and Age of Arrival (5–10) Lithuanian Very Not very Age of arrival 5–10 Excellent good Good good Poor Total Speaking 4 (66%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 6 (100%) Listening 5 (83%) 1 (17%) 6 (100%) Writing 1 (17%) 3 (50%) 2 (33%) 6 (100%) Reading 4 (67%) 2 (33%) 6 (100%)
Table 13
Internet Survey Self-evaluated Proficiency in Lithuanian and Age of Arrival (11–16) Lithuanian Excellent Very good Good Not very Poor Total N Age of arrival 11–16 good Speaking 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 5 (100%) Listening 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 5 (100%) Writing 1 (20%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 5 (100%) Reading 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 5 (100%)
Table 14
Internet Survey Self-evaluated Proficiency in Lithuanian and Age of Arrival (17–22) Lithuanian Excellent Very Good Not very Poor Total N Age of arrival 17–22 good good Speaking 6 (86 %) 1 (14%) 7 (100%) Listening 6 (86%) 1 (14%) 7 (100%) Writing 6 (86%) 1 (14%) 7 (100%) Reading 6 (86%) 1 (14%) 7 (100%)
The group that arrived at the youngest age (between two and four) felt strong about their speaking and listening abilities; however, they rated themselves only as “good” for reading and writing. The group that came between five and ten felt strong about their speaking, listening and reading skills but evaluated their writing skills as “very good” or “good.” Those who came between the ages of eleven and sixteen, like as the latter group, felt confident in their speaking, listening, and reading skills but many rated their writing skills as weaker. Those who came after the age of seventeen (G1) consider themselves fully proficient in all four modalities. Varying evaluations of proficiency by modality are strongly related to schooling in Lithuanian. Most
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
123 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
respondents who arrived at the age of seventeen and older completed most of their formal schooling in Lithuania. Those who arrived between the ages of eleven and sixteen have completed approximately half of their formal schooling in Lithuania, grades 5–10. Those who come between the ages of five and ten have completed just a few elementary school grades or none at all. The youngest group usually is not exposed to formal education in Lithuanian and therefore rate themselves most highly in oral skills (speaking and listening), which are acquired in interpersonal settings and not in a formal education environment. The correlation between the amount of education in the heritage language in the home country and the degree of competence in the language has also been observed for Russian heritage speakers (Kagan, 2005, p. 216; Kagan & Dillon, 2008, p. 147). Table 15 shows the graphical representation of the correlation between the respondents' age of arrival and proficiency in the four modalities in Lithuanian. Table 15 Internet Survey Correlation between Age of Arrival and Proficiency in Four Different Abilities in Lithuanian14 Age Groups Speaking Listening Writing Reading 2 to 4 weaker weaker 5 to 10 weaker 11 to 16 weaker 17 to 22
The data indicate that those who are fully literate in Lithuanian arrived after the age of seventeen, and that they feel confident in all four modalities. Those who arrive between the ages of two and four (G2 speakers) feel weak not only in writing, but also in reading skills. The five- to-ten and eleven-to-sixteen groups are similar in the sense that both of them feel strong in speaking, listening, and reading, and both groups have deficient writing skills. The five-to-ten group is considered the G1.5 generation, while those who arrive between eleven and sixteen are considered G1 speakers. The similar pattern among these two groups indicates that G1 is not homogenous: proficiency in different modalities for this group highly depends on the age of arrival. In order to prove these tendencies, more accurate data on language proficiency has to be assessed using more reliable measures (for instance, language tests). Language Dominance Respondents in both surveys were asked to indicate their stronger or dominant language. Results of both surveys according to generation are presented in Figure 5.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
124 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
Figure 5. Combined surveys: dominant language
The majority of the G1 speakers indicated Lithuanian as their dominant language. None of the respondents checked English as their stronger or dominant language. Only four respondents indicated that they feel equally proficient using both languages. Only fifty percent of the G1.5 indicated Lithuanian as their stronger language. The remaining respondents chose English, and few indicated feeling equally strong in both languages. Thus, the gradual shift from Lithuanian to English from G1 to G3 might be related to the G1.5 group of Lithuanian heritage speakers. Most G2 and G3 respondents indicated English as their stronger language. Involvement in Lithuanian activities and Lithuanian Saturday Schools As mentioned, Lithuanian is mostly maintained through Lithuanian Saturday schools and Lithuanian-American community efforts. Therefore, involvement in Lithuanian activities in the United States is crucial for the intergenerational transmission and maintenance of Lithuanian. All respondents in the Internet Survey were therefore asked to provide information on whether they attend or had attended Lithuanian schools and whether they were involved in other activities in the Lithuanian community. The data on involvement in Lithuanian activities are presented in Figure 6.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
125 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
Figure 6. Internet Survey involvement in Lithuanian activities by generation
The data correlate with the generation. It appears that most G1.5, G2 and G3 Lithuanian heritage speakers are highly involved in Lithuanian activities in the United States. Only the G1 generation (recent immigrants) had more negative than positive answers. As noted in Celešiūtė (2008), involvement in Lithuanian activities and maintenance of Lithuanian depends to a great degree on recent (in this case G1) immigrants’ decision to stay in the United States permanently or temporarily. Some of those who intend to stay here permanently are not interested in maintaining Lithuanian culture, especially in transmitting the language to future generations, and this might explain, at least to some extent, the outcomes of this study regarding the negative correlation of some G1 speakers and their involvement in Lithuanian activities. The recent immigrant group, however, is not homogenous, and some of the third-wave immigrants might be highly involved in Lithuanian activities.15 Involvement in Lithuanian activities is relatively high among the G2 and G3 respondents, and that is a positive sign for the maintenance of Lithuanian culture for future generations. Most G3 respondents are the offspring of the second-wave immigrants, for whom the involvement in community activities is an inseparable part of their Lithuanian- American identity.16 The Lithuanian activities mentioned in the open-ended questions included the religious organization Ateitininkai (especially Dainava summer camps in Manchester, MI), Lithuanian scouts, Lithuanian church, Lithuanian Saturday schools, and ethnic dancing groups. All of G3 respondents had also attended Lithuanian Saturday schools. This indicates that Lithuanian is actively maintained through Lithuanian schools among G3 heritage speakers. Usage of Lithuanian Internet and Skype An indicator of heritage language maintenance is its usage with technologies that are part of everyday life. The respondents in the Internet Survey were asked to indicate whether they browse Lithuanian Internet sites and whether they use Lithuanian for written chatting on Skype. The data on the use of the Internet in Lithuanian are provided in Figure 7.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
126 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
Figure 7. Internet Survey use of the Lithuanian Internet
The empirical data indicate that most G1 and G1.5 browse the Lithuanian Internet every day or at least once a week. While G2 heritage speakers read content on the Lithuanian Internet at least once a month, the G3 speakers visit Lithuanian websites very rarely. This tendency might be related to the previously discussed proficiency in different domains. As noted, G3 speakers do not feel strong in their reading and writing abilities, which probably influences their choice not to read or browse Lithuanian websites. A negative correlation between age of arrival (generation) and usage of Internet in their heritage language has also been observed among the respondents of National Heritage Language Survey (Carreira & Kagan, 2011, p. 51). The respondents were also asked to indicate their use of Lithuanian on Skype and whether they use Lithuanian spelling (Lithuanian keyboard) when chatting. The data on the Lithuanian usage on Skype are provided in Figure 8. Figure 8. Internet Survey Lithuanian usage on Skype
Data indicate that most of the G1 and G1.5 speakers use Lithuanian on Skype, while the G2 and G3 do not. The reported use of Skype among the G1 and G1.5 speakers might be related to that
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
127 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
group’s membership in the most recent immigrant wave from Lithuania, which could mean that they have close relatives in Lithuania with whom they use Lithuanian. In addition, G3 respondents indicated lower levels of writing proficiency in Lithuanian than the other groups, and a lack of writing skills might also affect this group’s non-usage of Lithuanian on Skype. Those who write in Lithuanian for chatting on Skype were also asked whether they use Lithuanian spelling (keyboard). With the exception of three G1 speakers who indicated they use it sometimes, no respondents indicated that they used Lithuanian orthographic symbols. It is possible that many G1.5, G2, and G3 speakers do not know the layout of the Lithuanian keyboard, or might lack the proficiency to use the case or length markers (<ą>, <ę>, <į>, <ų>, <ė>, <ū>). Since most of their writing is done in English, they may find it easier to type without the Lithuanian letters. On the other hand, given that numerous young native speakers chat without using Lithuanian symbols (Žalkauskaitė, 2009), this tendency is not exclusive to heritage speakers. However, it suggests that the literacy of typing skills in Lithuanian among the majority of Lithuanian heritage speakers is quite low. Conclusion Consistent with the findings on other heritage languages (Carreira & Kagan, 2011 and others), Lithuanian heritage speakers exhibit high oral proficiency, but lack writing and reading skills. Based on self-evaluations of language proficiency, different generations of Lithuanian heritage speakers possess various linguistic proficiencies in English and Lithuanian. General representations of the connection between linguistic proficiency and the age of arrival correspond with observations on the correlation between generation and linguistic proficiency. However, a more thorough look at proficiency in four language abilities reveals that the G1 group does not exhibit homogenous linguistic proficiency – proficiency in linguistic skills for this group strongly depends on the age of arrival and presumably length of the stay in the United States. In addition, the respondents’ evaluation of their proficiency in the four modalities is strongly related to the amount of schooling they received in Lithuanian: the older the immigration age, the better literacy skills respondents had in all four categories. On the other hand, among the Lithuanian heritage speakers, the dominant language rapidly shifts from Lithuanian to English, observed as early as the G1.5 group. A correlation between generation and involvement in Lithuanian activities was also observed. G1 was the only group that indicated a lack of involvement in Lithuanian activities. This tendency is important, since the G1 group’s negative attitudes toward the transmission of the Lithuanian language to future generations and their non-involvement in Lithuanian activities and the local community may affect the future of Lithuanian in the United States (see Phinney et al. (2001) on the connections between cultural maintenance activities and ethnic language proficiency). On the other hand, the high involvement of G3 speakers in Lithuanian Saturday schools indicates that Lithuanian education in these schools is still highly maintained among G3 Lithuanians. This group's school attendance suggests the higher likelihood of being bilingual among G3 Lithuanians as compared to other immigrant groups (cf. Alba et al. (2002) on the rates of English-only speakers among several third-generation heritage speaker groups).
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
128 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
The data on the usage of Lithuanian on the Internet as well as on Skype revealed that the majority of G2 and G3 speakers rarely use Lithuanian in these contexts. This might be related to the weaker writing and reading skills that these groups self-reported. However, even those who do use Lithuanian on Skype do not usually use the Lithuanian keyboard and therefore fail to enhance their computer literacy in Lithuanian. The non-usage of Lithuanian in technology-based activity diminishes the usage of Lithuanian in everyday life and enforces the usage of English.
References Alba, R., Logan, J., Lutz, A. & Stults, B. (2002). Only English by the Third Generation? Loss and Preservation of the Mother Tongue among the Grandchildren of Contemporary Immigrants. Demography 39 (3), 467–484. Carreira, M. & Kagan, O. (2011). The Results of the National Heritage Language Survey: Implications for Teaching, Curriculum Design, and Professional Development. Foreign Language Annals, 44 (1), 40–64. Celešiūtė I. (2008). Lituanistinio vaikų ugdymo užsienio šalyse ypatumai [Educating Children to be Conscious of their Lithuanian Heritage Abroad: Some Problems]. In Emigracija ir šeima: vaikų ugdymo problemos ir iššūkiai [Emigration and the Family: Problems and Challenges of Children’s Education] (pp. 177–214). Kaunas: Versus aureus. Fainhauz, D. (1991). Lithuanians in the USA. Aspects of ethnic identity. Chicago, Illinois: Lithuanian Library Press, Inc. Fonacier, E. C. (2010). Tagalog in the USA. In K. Potowski (Ed.), Language Diversity in the USA (pp. 96–109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gambhir, S. (2001). Truly Less Commonly Taught Languages and Heritage Language Learners in the United States. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage Languages in America: Preserving National Resource (pp. 207–228). CAL, ERIC. Gruodytė, E. & Liutikienė, L. (2008). Emigracijoje gyvenančių lietuvių vaikų ugdymo problematika [Problems Concerning the Education of Lithuanian Emigrant Children]. In Emigracija ir šeima: vaikų ugdymo problemos ir iššūkiai [Emigration and the Family: Problems and Challenges of Children’s Education] (pp. 153–176). Kaunas: Versus aureus. Hornberger, N. H. (2004). The Continua of Biliteracy and the Bilingual Educator: Educational Linguistics in Practice. Bilingual education and bilingualism, 7 (2/3), 155–171. Kagan, O. & Dillon, K. (2008). Issues in Heritage Language Learning in the United States. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl and N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, vol. 4: Second and Foreign Language Education (pp. 143–156). New York: Springer. Kagan, O. & Friedman, D. (2003). Using the OPI to Place Heritage Speakers of Russian. Foreign Language Annals, 36(4), 536–545. Kagan, O. (2005). In Support of a Proficiency-based Definition of Heritage Language Learners: The Case of Russian. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8 (2/3), 213–221.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
129 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
Karčiauskaitė, I. (2008). Lituanistinis švietimas emigracijoje [Lithuanian-oriented Education in Emigration]. In Emigracija ir šeima: vaikų ugdymo problemos ir iššūkiai [Emigration and the Family: Problems and Challenges of Children’s Education] (pp. 27–68). Kaunas: Versus aureus. Kemėšis, F. (1934). Lietuvybės ateitis Amerikoje [The Future of Lithuanian Matters in America]. Naujoji Romuva, 195, 673–678. Kučas, A. (1975). Lithuanians in America. Boston, Massachusetts: Encyclopecia Lituanica. Kuzmickaitė, D. (2000). The adaptation of recent Lithuanian immigrants in Chicago. Lituanus, 46 (2), 63–76. Kuzmickaitė, D. K. (2003). Between Two Worlds: Recent Lithuanian Immigrants in Chicago (1988-2000). Vilnius: Versus aureus. Lietuvos gyventojai 2011 metais [Lithuanian Population in 2011] (2012). Lietuvos statistikos departamentas [Lithuanian Department of Statistics]. Retrieved from http://osp.stat.gov.lt/documents/10180/110539/Lietuvos_gyventojai_2011.pdf/28bc399a- 5b38-4b66-a3c7-7ca01d1f76d1?version=1.0 Lithuanian Department of Statistics (2013). Population beginning of the year. Retrieved from http://www.stat.gov.lt/en/ Lithuanian Department of Statistics. (2002). Mokame vis daugiau kalbų [We Know More and More Languages] [press release]. Retrieved from: http://osp.stat.gov.lt/documents/10180/212826/2002_12_13.pdf/a6306020-2490-4845-a169- 47bcda94f1fd?version=1.0 Lithuanian Educational Council of the USA (2012). JAV lituanistinės mokyklos ir jų direktorės. [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.svietimotaryba.org/newsite/pdf_files/jav509.pdf Liu, P. (2006). Community-Based Chinese Schools in Southern California: A Survey of Teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19 (2), 237–247. Macevičiūtė, J. (2000). The Beginnings of Language Loss in Discourse. A Study of American Lithuanian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Masilionis, J. & Petersonienė, S. (Eds.). (2000). Lietuviškasis švietimas Šiaurės Amerikoje [Lithuanian Education in North America]. Chicago: Pedagoginis lituanistikos institutas. Norvilas, A. (1990). Which language shall we speak? Language choice among young Lithuanian bilinguals. Journal of Baltic Studies, XXI(3), 215–230. Pažūsis, L. (1973). Anglų kalbos semantiniai skoliniai Šiaurės Amerikos lietuvių kalboje [English Semantic Loanwords in American Lithuanian]. Kalbotyra, 26, 27–36. Pažūsis, L. (1988). Anglų kalbos interferencija antrosios JAV lietuvių kartos gimtosios kalbos tartyje [English Interference in the Speech of Second Generation American Lithuanians]. Kalbotyra, 39(1), 70–80. Peyton, J. K., Ranard, D. A. & McGinnis, S. (2001). Charting a new course: Heritage language education in the United States. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 3–26). Washington, DC: CAL, ERIC; [McHenry, IL]: Delta Systems Co., Inc. Phinney, J. S., Romero, I., Nava, M. & Huang D. (2001). The Role of Language, Parents, and Peers in Ethnic Identity Among Adolescents in Immigrant Families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(2), 135–153.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
130 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
Potowski, K. (2004). Spanish language shift in Chicago. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 23(1), 87–116. Potowski, K., & Carreira, M. (2010). Spanish in the USA. In K. Potowski (Ed.), Language Diversity in the USA (pp. 66–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rumbaut, R. G. (2004). Ages, Life Stages, and Generational Cohorts: Decomposing the Immigrant First and Second Generations in the United States. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1160–1205. Sinochkina, B. (2001). “Ours” and “theirs” in the language and mentality of American Lithuanians. In P. Sture Ureland (Ed.), Global Eurolinguistics: European language in North America–Migration, maintenance and death, (pp. 341–354). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Subačius, G. (2005). The Lithuanian Language: Tradition and trends. Vilnius: The Lithuanian Institute. Tamošiūnaitė, A. (2008). The Lithuanian Language in the United States: Shift or Maintenance? Lituanus, 54 (3), 60–78. The Lithuanian Charter. (1949). Retrieved from http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter/w5_show? p_r=479&p_d=2888&p_k=1 Tumėnas, S. (2006). JAV lietuvių požiūrio į dvikalbystę ir kalbos vertybinės skalės sociolingvistinė analizė [Sociolinguistic Analysis of Lithuanian-American Attitudes toward Bilingualism and Language Usage]. Acta humanitarica universitatis Saulensis, 1, 163–168. Tumėnas, S. (2008). Emigracijos į JAV ir lituanistinio švietimo išeivijoje ypatumų raiška [Emigration to the USA and Lithuanian Education in Emigration: Main Tendencies]. Gimtasai kraštas. Retrieved from: http://www.ziemgala.lt/lt/metrastis-gimtasai- krastas/gimtasai-krastas-2008/emigracijos-i-jav-ir-lituanistinio-svietimo-iseivijoje-ypatumu- raiska Tumėnas, S. (2010). JAV lietuvių išeivių žodyno sandara [The Structure of American Lithuanian Vocabulary]. Gimtasai kraštas, 20–24. Retrieved from: http://www.ziemgala.lt/lt/metrastis- gimtasai-krastas/gimtasai-krastas-2010/jav-lietuviu-iseiviu-zodyno-raida U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). U.S. Census 2000: Language spoken at home [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/census/index.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). American Community Survey, 2005 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). American Community Survey, 2006–2008 [Data file]. Retrieved from: http://factfinder2.census.gov U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.) Definitions and explanations of terms. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/main/www/glossary.html Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage Language Students: Profiles and Possibilities. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard & S. McGinnis (eds.), Heritage Languages in America: Preserving National Resource (pp. 37–77). Washington, DC: CAL, ERIC; [McHenry, IL]: Delta Systems Co., Inc. Wiley, T. G. (2001). Policy Formation and Implementation. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard & S. McGinnis (eds.), Heritage Languages in America: Preserving National Resource (pp. 99– 108). Washington, DC: CAL, ERIC; [McHenry, IL]: Delta Systems Co., Inc.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
131 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
Xiao, Y. (2010). Chinese in the USA. In K. Potowski (Ed.), Language Diversity in the USA (pp. 81–95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zinkevičius, Z. (1998). The History of the Lithuanian Language. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Žalkauskaitė, G. (2009). Lietuviškos raidės elektroniniuose laiškuose [Lithuanian characters in electronic mail ]. Kalbos kultūra, 82, 275–286.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
132 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
Notes 1. In the Census and ACS data, “Lithuanian speakers” denote those individuals who declared Lithuanian as their home language as opposed to English or other non-English languages (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.). The total number of Lithuanian speakers living in the United States is probably higher, taking into consideration those heritage speakers who do not use Lithuanian as their primary language and therefore do not indicate it as their home language.
2. Lithuanian is taught at two universities in the United States, the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Washington in Seattle, as well as during the Baltic Languages Summer Institute (BALSSI) hosted by a consortium of 12 universities. The University of Illinois at Chicago is the only university in the United States that has an Endowed Chair of Lithuanian Studies.
3. The results on language use gathered by the most recent Census of Lithuanian Republic will be announced at the end of 2013 (Lietuvos gyventojai 2011 metais, p. 42).
4. As of January 2013, there were 2.9 million people living in Lithuania (Lithuanian Department of Statistics, 2013).
5. Due to the Soviet occupation of Lithuania and the “Iron Curtain,” travel for many immigrants of the previous waves was prohibited for many years.
6. A few studies have been completed on Lithuanian as it is spoken in the United States, including lexicon and phonology (Pažūsis, 1973, 1988; Tumėnas, 2010), language choice and proficiency (Norvilas, 1990; Macevičiūtė, 2000) and attitudes toward bilingualism (Tumėnas 2006).
7. For greater details about that survey, see Tamošiūnaitė (2008).
8. The LSS questionnaire used the term “bad” to connote the “less than satisfactory” proficiency level in HL; in the Internet Survey it was replaced with the more appropriate term “poor.” The latter term is used to refer to the results of both studies in this article.
9. For other findings of the LSS study (language use with family members and peers, language preference with bilingual friends and reasons for using Lithuanian and/or English), see Tamošiūnaitė (2008).
10. In both surveys, the generational pattern of the respondents to a certain degree reflects the immigration wave, i.e., the G1, G1.5, and most of the G2 respondents are the offspring of the third-wave (recent) immigrants from Lithuania, while majority of G3 respondents are the descendants of the second-wave (post-World War II) immigrants.
11. It should be kept in mind that majority of G3 are the offspring of the second wave, rather than recent, immigrants.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access
133 Heritage Language Journal, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.1.6 Summer, 2013
12. I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer of this article who drew my attention to this point.
13. Hornberger’s continua model of biliteracy considers “the multiple and complex interrela- tionships between bilingualism and literacy and the importance of the contexts, media, and content through which biliteracy develops” (2004, p. 156). For the purpose of this research I rely only on two dimensions, mainly the oral–written and oral–literate continua.
14. The shading in this table indicates that respondents perceive themselves as having relatively high proficiency in those categories.
15. For instance, the majority of the teachers in the Chicago Lithuanian Saturday school are recent immigrants, rather than United States-born Lithuanian-Americans.
16. For example The Lithuanian Charter (see §8) calls for support, maintenance, and participation in community activities.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 04:22:44PM via free access