UKRAINA SÕJAPÕGENIKE ST LASTE JA KOHALIKE VENE KODUKEELEGA LASTE EESTI KEELE OSKUS 3. KLASSI ALGUSES
ESTONIAN LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF UKRAINIAN WAR REFUGEE CHILDREN AND LOCAL RUSSIAN HOME-LANGUAGE CHILDREN AT THE BEGINNING OF GRADE 3

Summary/Abstract: This article examines the Estonian language proficiency of Ukrainian war refugee children and local non-Estonian-speaking children at the beginning of grade 3, focusing on vocabulary and basic hierarchical constructions. It investigates differences between the two groups, the influence of linguistic input on Estonian acquisition, and variation across schools and class types. The study included 55 third-grade pupils from six schools, representing a total of 12 classes. The sample comprised 33 Ukrainian war refugee pupils and 22 local pupils with a non-Estonian home language, predominantly Russian. Estonian language proficiency was assessed using a picture description task (see Kütt-Leedis 2023, Argus & Rüütmaa 2024 for a detailed description), and information on factors related to the linguistic input environment was collected via a questionnaire survey. The results indicate that, based on the picture description task, the Estonian proficiency of 9–10-year-old Ukrainian war refugee pupils acquiring Estonian as a second language is not substantially lower than that of local non-Estonian-speaking pupils. Qualitative analysis showed that local second-language learners performed slightly better; however, a statistically significant difference emerged for only one construction type. On the one hand, this result is expected, as local pupils have typically had longer exposure to Estonian. On the other hand, the findings are somewhat surprising, as larger differences in overall proficiency, including vocabulary, might have been anticipated. The question of whether placement in separate classes benefits war refugee pupils remains inconclusive. Pupils in mainstream classes performed slightly less well on the constructions elicited in the picture description task, but the difference was not statistically significant. The overall sample size was relatively small, and dividing it by class type resulted in groups too small to yield statistically robust effects. This limitation restricts firm conclusions, including those concerning the relationship between linguistic input environment factors and language proficiency, particularly given the unequal group sizes. Nevertheless, the qualitative analysis revealed several novel findings. Descriptions produced by local pupils acquiring Estonian as a second language contained more verbs, adverbs, and verb–complement combinations than those of Ukrainian war refugee pupils. This pattern may be related to longer exposure to Estonian, as many local pupils had attended Estonian-medium kindergartens. One possible explanation concerns differences in acquisition pathways across word classes: nouns may be acquired more often through formal instruction, whereas verbs may rely more heavily on input. This interpretation, however, requires further targeted research.

• Details
• Contents