- A Greeting to International Mother Language Day: The Language- Identity Relationship in Migrant and Refugee Children and the Justification of the Bilingual Education Model
The concept of globalization, defined by the Turkish Language Association as “leading the nations of the world to approach one another and to become a whole in terms of economy, politics, and communication”; in terms of societies that contain different cultures, beliefs, and languages, does not advance this process of integration on an egalitarian ground, and may at times cause dominant values to establish superiority over other cultural elements and lead to the disappearance of the other.
Especially in the late 19th century, global economic integration, which gained momentum with the Industrial Revolution, significantly increased interstate interaction. The large-scale destruction caused by the Second World War that followed, together with the bipolar and competitive international structure of the Cold War period, and the acceleration of mass displacement movements, turned the phenomena of migration and refugeedom into one of the permanent elements of the international system. This historical transformation brought about not only the cross-border circulation of capital and goods, but also of the human being, who possess strong intangible elements such as identity, culture, and belonging. Individuals and communities who are part of this circulation, in the process of interstate relocation that they carry out sometimes compulsorily and sometimes voluntarily, become incorporated into the legal order and public life of a sovereign state whose demographic and institutional structure is different. This situation inevitably generates structural adaptation needs both in the integration processes of migrants and in the public service delivery mechanisms of the host state.
At the forefront of the areas in which these individual and public adaptations are most distinctly felt are linguistic arrangements. For language, going beyond being a technical tool that enables communication, shapes the individual’s sense of belonging, the construction of identity, and social continuity, and is also the most prominent carrier of the individual’s cultural identity. However, unlike settled citizens, for the migrant or refugee whose cultural structure in which identity construction takes place differs from the social and cultural codes of the state in which he or she is compelled to live, language acquires a much more complex character. In this context, while on the one hand the need arises to sustain the existence of the mother tongue as a fundamental element in preserving the individual’s bond with the past and cultural continuity, on the other hand the acquisition of the official language determined as a prerequisite by the sovereign nation-state for access to public life and the effective exercise of rights also emerges as an inevitable necessity.
The importance of this matter has also been reinforced in the Explanatory Report annexed to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, where it is explicitly stated that the mother tongue is one of the fundamental carriers of identity development for the child and that there is no exception to this. Although the relevant convention and report were prepared with reference to the education of national minorities rather than refugee or migrant children, it is clear that the principled approach they put forward points to a universal reality that is valid for all children, without regard to any difference in status.
However, this construction of identity is not a process completed with the child’s commencement of formal education; on the contrary, it is regarded as a developmental trajectory that is reproduced and layered throughout childhood within the relationship established with the linguistic and cultural environment. In order for this development to be supported in a healthy manner, it is recommended that the child continue his or her education through the mother tongue until approximately the age of 10–12; thereafter, the process of integration should be strengthened by teaching the official language of the sovereign state first at the level of oral communication and subsequently, in a gradual manner, together with written language and literacy skills.
In the event that this is not possible, it is recommended that a bilingual education model in which the mother tongue predominates be adopted; that the distribution of the language of instruction be gradually rebalanced over time in favor of the official language; and that, in this way, the sense of identity and belonging be strengthened, thereby supporting learning motivation.
Otherwise, it is stated that education carried out in the early period without providing mother tongue support may produce psychosocially wearing effects on the child; that in certain linguistic approaches this situation is evaluated within the scope of psychological violence, and that it is characterized by Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, in a harsher expression, as “psychological torture.” In this respect, in the first part of our relevant series of articles, the importance of education in the mother tongue and its effect on academic achievement through experimental studies are addressed. For the loss experienced by a child deprived of mother tongue support in the early period does not remain merely an individual diminution; it also produces severe consequences at the public level. When examined from an individual perspective, it has been observed that a child who moves away from education in the mother tongue develops fractures in cognitive development, academic self-confidence, and identity integrity, and that although the child receives intensive education in the official language together with members of the sovereign state, he or she is often driven into a disadvantaged position within the society in which he or she lives without reaching a sufficient level of integration.
At the public level, these fractures have been observed to increase the need for compensatory support within the education system, thereby creating an additional burden on public resources; and, in cases where education is insufficient, to lead to the child’s disengagement from the education and learning process, which in the long term results in skill loss across society, the deepening of inequalities, and the weakening of social cohesion.
It should not be forgotten that multilingualism is not merely the ability to speak another language or languages; it is the capacity to move between different systems of thought, to develop multiple perspectives, and to establish intercultural interaction. This capacity not only strengthens individual achievement but also contributes to the preservation of cultural diversity and the enrichment of social pluralism. This recognition has likewise been embraced at the global level under the auspices of the United Nations, led by UNESCO, and in order to emphasize the importance of this matter, 21 February has been declared “International Mother Language Day.” Indeed, experimental and comparative research conducted in the fields of language acquisition and cognitive development also supports this supranational recognition.
For example, in one of the studies cited by Wen-Jui Han, it was determined that within the policy framework in which the United States, for a long period beginning in the 1960s, evaluated bilingualism not as a pedagogical value but as a field of deficiency to be remedied with respect to minority students, directing students solely to English remedial courses without providing mother tongue support pushed those students into a disadvantaged position both in terms of language development and academic performance; whereas, with the adoption by the state, beginning in the 1990s, of programs similar to the two-way immersion model developed in Canada, it was found that the bilingual education policy strengthened not only integration into the group to which they belong and the society in which they live, but also academic achievement.
Similarly, in a study by Durán, L. K., and others, 31 preschool migrant children whose mother tongue was Spanish and whose ages ranged between 38–48 months were randomly assigned to classes in which the same curriculum was implemented but which differed only in terms of the language of instruction (mother tongue–dominant Spanish bilingual education and education solely in the official language, English), and their development was examined in two periods, at the beginning and at the end of the academic year.
The findings obtained as a result of the experiment revealed that students in the Spanish-dominant bilingual class recorded significant progress in oral vocabulary knowledge and early literacy skills in their mother tongue; whereas, in comparison to their peers who received education only in English, they did not exhibit any lag in terms of English language development. As can be understood, the mother tongue–based bilingual education model strengthens children’s mother tongue competencies, thereby supporting the preservation and continuation of their cultural identities; at the same time, by developing their acquisition of the official language concurrently, it does not constitute an obstacle to strengthening their processes of integration without weakening their ties with the society in which they live.
However, when the process adopted in practice is examined, it is observed that access to mother tongue or bilingual education models has not been transformed into a systematic and sustainable public policy for most nation-states; that such practices are either confined within a narrow framework through limited pilot programs or are not sufficiently supported on the grounds of budgetary and administrative priorities.
This monolingual approach, which will be examined in detail in the second part of our series of articles, will again be analyzed through cases with regard to its impact on the development of migrant and refugee children; and it will be discussed how this situation, contrary to the success observed in children receiving bilingual education, gives rise to long-term and difficult-to-remedy consequences at both individual and societal levels in terms of linguistic development, academic achievement, and identity integrity.
In summary, in the face of the multilingual and multicultural social structure brought about by globalization, it has been demonstrated through experimental findings that the mother tongue–based bilingual education model constitutes a pedagogically strong solution for migrant and refugee children. These studies show that it supports the preservation and continuation of children’s cultural identities by strengthening their mother tongue competencies; that it reinforces their academic achievement by increasing their cognitive flexibility; and that, with respect to the acquisition of the official language, it not only does not lead to any regression but also makes the balanced development of both languages possible.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the bilingual education model should be evaluated at the level of public policy by sovereign states as an approach that offers meaningful contributions both to individual development and to social integration.
SOURCES
Akbulut, O., Barış İçinde Birlikte Yaşamanın Hukuki Zemini. İstanbul: Oniki Levha Yayıncılık. 2008. ISBN: 978-605-0067-00-2.
Castro, D. C., Franco-Jenkins, X., & Chaparro-Moreno, L. J. (2025). “The Effects of Dual Language Education on Young Bilingual Children’s Learning: A Systematic Review of Research.” Education Sciences, 15(3), 312. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15030312.
Durán, L. K. & Reseth, C. J. & Hoffman, P. (2010). “Bilingual book formats and vocabulary learning in shared storybook reading”. Journal of Child Language, 37(3), 567–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.10.002.
Jasaiwal, A. (2023). “Globalisation, Migration and Refugee Crisis.” Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, 5, 1-7.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/injlolw11&i=3617.
Lemay, H. (2014). “Le soutien en langue maternelle : une approche novatrice pour les élèves allophones en difficulté.” Québec français, 172, 23-24. https://elodil.openum.ca/files/sites/249/2023/12/Armand-Hardy-Lemay-2014-Le-soutien-en-langue-maternelle.pdf.
Leboutte, R. “Mondialisation et migrations internationales. Le retournement historique des migrations internationales en Europe entre 1900 et l’an 2000.” Économie appliquée, 55(2), 91–120. https://doi.org/10.3406/ecoap.2002.3072.
Oral, D., & Lund, A. (2022). “Mother Tongue Instruction: Between Assimilation and Multicultural Incorporation.” Education Sciences, 12(11), 774.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110774.
Phillipson, R. & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Rannut M., Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1995. ISBN: 3-11-014878-1.
Topcu, N. (2019). Küreselleşme, uluslararası göç ve Avrupa Birliği göç politikaları. NOSYON: Uluslararası Toplum Ve Kültür Çalışmaları Dergisi, 3, 50-65. https://izlik.org/JA66UM22RB.
Scutnabb-Kangas, T., Bilingualism or Not: The Education
