2

According to Wikipedia:

The 2015 European migrant crisis, also known internationally as the Syrian refugee crisis, was a period of significantly increased movement of refugees and migrants into Europe in 2015, when 1.3 million people came to the continent to request asylum, the most in a single year since World War II. Those requesting asylum in Europe in 2015 were mostly Syrians, but also included significant numbers of Afghans, Nigerians, Pakistanis, Iraqis and Eritreans, as well as economic migrants from the Balkans.

Now that it's been ~7 years since the crisis has started, do we have any data on what % of refugees have become fluent speakers of the local language? I'd define "fluent" as being capable of speaking the language at the C1 level of the CEFR guideline.

13
  • 7
    This question doesn't seem to be about politics, although I grant you could use the answer to prove a political point.
    – Stuart F
    Commented Jan 30, 2023 at 10:48
  • 2
    Thinking about it a bit, one of the critical factors would be the age mix of the migrants. Seven years later, probably almost all children who migrated are fluent by now. Probably a very small share of elderly migrants, if there are any elderly migrants, are fluent. In between, it would be much less than 100% and significantly more than 0% but what percentage is hard to predict so we'd have to look at data. Age, interactions with the local population, and prior language instruction would all be factors. Virtually all adults, no matter how fluent, would have an easily discernible accent.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jan 30, 2023 at 17:26
  • 3
    Linguistic integration - and government support to achieve it - are key elements to successful integration of immigrants, so claiming it has nothing to do with SE.Po's subject seems very, very odd. That said, using the C1 level seems unduly demanding - Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes./Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, - seems to be a high bar for even natives of a country. Not because they can't, because their day-to-day life and job does not require it. Commented Jan 30, 2023 at 19:47
  • 2
    Plus, Goethe's and Alliance's - who presumably can score grants to do so - claims that 700-1200 hours are sufficient to achieve C2 seems farfetched and self-interested. As well as unrealistic with older immigrants who will have lost linguistic plasticity. A good Q, even if the answers may be uncomfortable, but the bar given is much too high. Commented Jan 30, 2023 at 19:50
  • 3
    Look at C1 definition. Take the average 30 year German-born carpenter. Is he going to be able, spontaneously, to write academic papers, when administered this test, as per this definition given? If he decides to enroll in a university, he may very well struggle for a short while, then adapt and excel. But he may not meet that threshold when given the test. So your chosen metric seems simplistic, even if the Q is both on topic here and worth asking. Commented Jan 30, 2023 at 19:56

1 Answer 1

4

Between Integration and Return: The Reality of New Syrian Refugees in Europe A Survey of Refugees in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden This, 2021, long, report gives some indication about specifically the Syrian refugees. This seems self-reported, rather than test-assessed.

The percentage of those defining their level of host-country language proficiency as “good” or “very good” was largest among those in the 18-25 age group. According to the survey, 61.2% of respondents aged 18-25 said their language level is “good” or “very good,” while 43.6% of respondents aged 26-39 rated their language proficiency level as “good” or “very good.” Among those 40-55 years, this percentage dropped to 20%. A clear difference can be seen between the average within the younger age group and the overall average of respondents who said their level of language proficiency is “good” or “very good,” which was about 37%.

This apparent relation between age and language proficiency level is linked to several factors, including the faster learning process for younger people and the involvement of a large number of younger people, especially those 18-25 years, in the educational process that helps raise host-country language proficiency levels.

Seems like a clear could do better. Either for the immigrants or the host country. I found it by way of Europe’s mounting challenge to integrate Syrian refugees @ TRTWorld which went on to say Sweden had the worst rate of the 4 countries, something I found surprising.

Overall, seems like a really in depth survey, also covering other subjects like social liberalism or employment rates.

Otherwise, this subject seems sparsely covered. For example, I found a Netherland report that refers to a survey. Said survey data is said to be unavailable to the general public, but links to summaries are provided. Links which then 404 in English, and lead to long lists of not-all-relevant documents in Dutch.

p.s. adding a comment I made about the criteria cited in the Q:

using the C1 level seems unduly demanding - Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes./Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects - seems to be a high bar for even natives of a country. Not because they can't, because their day-to-day life and job does not require it.

Plus, from personal experience, 600 to 1200 hours of class time does not result in C2 - top level - proficiency in a language. Not even close, so the effort required seems very underestimated.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .