The role of language use and attitudes on language maintenance and heritage identity: The situation of the Hemshin language in Türkiye

Introduction

Studies on endangered languages have revealed a relationship between the ethnolinguistic identities of speakers of endangered languages, the ethnolinguistic vitality of the endangered languages, and the language attitudes and language use patterns of the speakers (Giles & Johnson, 1987). Attitudes toward language and language use are two important factors recognized in the theory of ethnolinguistic identity (Giles & Johnson, 1987) and, likewise, play essential roles in the likelihood of endangered language survival (Austin & Sallabank, 2011; Sallabank, 2013). Ethnolinguistic identity theory proposes that the behaviors of individual members within a group are more influenced by their perceptions of the group’s vitality rather than its actual vitality (Bourhis & Sachdev, 1984; Giles et al., 1985; Giles & Johnson, 1987). In other words, individual group members tend to maintain their social identity with an ethnolinguistic group by marking their ethnic identity distinct through language. In addition to the ethnolinguistic identities of the speakers, the ethnolinguistic vitality of endangered languages has a strong bond with the language attitudes of the speakers. Giles et al. (1977) proposed that the maintenance of ethnolinguistic identity relies on the ethnolinguistic vitality of the language groups. If a group’s ethnolinguistic vitality is high, it is more likely that the group members will maintain their language and distinctive cultural behaviors. However, in case of low vitality, the group members may be subject to social and linguistic assimilation of the mainstream language and culture. Whatever the case may be, the ethnolinguistic identity of a group is partly, if not all, derived from the perceptions and attitudes of group members, and thus the maintenance and transmission of the language to further generations. Both the majority group’s attitudes and the speakers’ diverse attitudes toward their language impact its social status (Sánchez et al., 2018). According to Giles et al. (1977), ethnolinguistic minorities that have little or no group identity would cease to exist as distinctive groups in due course. Ethnolinguistic vitality and its relationship with language maintenance and the shift of minority languages have been researched in different multilingual contexts. This study aims to contribute to the literature by examining language attitudes and use among Hemshin people, a community with an endangered language residing in the eastern Black Sea region of Türkiye. By investigating a bilingual profile that is underrepresented, particularly Hemshin–Turkish bilingual speakers, this study will contribute to bilingualism research by aiming to understand how the dominant community language affects the maintenance and vitality of an endangered language. Through the lens of ethnolinguistic identity theory, the study will explore how language use and attitudes toward the Hemshin language serve as markers of the ethnolinguistic identity of speakers and influence the preservation of the Hemshin language. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have been devoted specifically to the use of Hemshin and how the Hemshinli perceive their language. The research questions of the study are as follows:

Hemshin people and Hemshin language

The Hemshin people reside on lands stretching from the Pazar district of Rize as far east as the Georgian border of Kemalpaşa district in the province of Artvin in Türkiye as Figure 1 (https://images.app.goo.gl/g4vguDDiAMmMD2Fa8) illustrates.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The areas where the Hemshin people reside.

Although it is not known exactly when the Hemshin people migrated to the eastern area (i.e., Hopa) from the traditional Arka (Bash) Hemşin, this migration led to the separation of the Hemshin people into two communities concerning both their territory, language, and culture beginning in the sixteenth century (Vaux et al., 1996). The Hemshin people who stayed in the traditional Arka Hemşin and Çamlıhemşin have been speaking only Turkish since around the second half of the nineteenth century. On the contrary, the eastern Hemshinli who migrated to the Hopa, Borcka, and Kemalpaşa districts of Artvin are competent bilingual speakers of both Turkish and Hemshin, also called Homshetsma, and have been speaking both languages simultaneously (Vaux, 2007).

Vaux (2007) indicates that Homshetsma is among the most distinct Armenian varieties, having not been influenced by classical or literary dialects due to its lack of a written form. Consequently, Homshetsma provides a clear representation of pure Armenian.

The Hemshin language is classified as “Potentially Vulnerable” by UNESCO (Moseley, 2010). This classification indicates that while the language is still spoken, it faces risks of decline, particularly as its use is limited to certain domains, such as within the home and among community members. In the case of Hemshin, the language is not consistently spoken across all Hemshin communities, even in districts traditionally associated with the Hemshin people. This inconsistency in usage, combined with the shrinking contexts in which the language is actively employed, places Hemshin at risk of extinction.

Method

This study adopted an ethnographic approach to fieldwork and utilized face-to-face interviews to gather data. The data were collected in Hopa, Çamlıhemşin, and Hemşin districts where most Hemshin people in Türkiye reside.

Before data collection, the first author and a local guide made regular visits to the districts and villages to build trust with participants and mitigate the impact of “social desirability bias” (Saville-Troike, 2003). For this study, 60 participants (38 women aged between 35 and 96, and 22 men aged between 32 and 77) were interviewed in Turkish. The participants were mostly chosen among those above 30 because they were the ones whose language had less deteriorated. While 20 participants were residing in Hopa, 20 were in Hemşin and 20 were in Çamlıhemşin. The participants were asked about their consent for audio and video recording before the interviews. The interview comprised 18 open-ended questions adapted from studies on socio-linguistic vitality within the framework of ethnolinguistic identity and ethnolinguistic vitality theories. The questionnaire covered inquiries about beliefs concerning the origins of the Hemshin language, the various domains of language usage, attitudes toward the language, and finally, Hemshin culture.

Results

The purpose of the study is to examine the language use and attitudes of the Hemshin people and its role in language maintenance and heritage identity. The qualitative data analysis was made following multiphase content analysis (Lieblich et al., 1998; Riessman, 2016). The results will be presented in four categories: beliefs and attitudes regarding the origin of Hemshin language, domains of Hemshin language use, language attitudes of the Hemshin people, and their culture.

As mentioned earlier, the Hemshin people in Hemşin and Çamlıhemşin districts only speak Turkish, while those in Hopa are fluent in both Hemshin and Turkish. The data analysis highlighted this difference, necessitating its categorization into two groups: Hopa district and Çamlıhemşin/Hemşin districts.

Beliefs about the origin of Hemshin

The origin of Hemshin language is presented as a controversial issue in literature in that while some researchers consider the origin of the language Armenian (Bläsıng, 2007; Vaux, 2007), some others suggest that its origin is Turkish (Aslan, 2006; Kırzıoğlu, 1966). To understand the perception of the Hemshin people regarding their own language’s origin, the participants were asked about the language’s name and their knowledge of its origin and history. All Hemshin people in Hopa referred to their language as “Hemşince” in Turkish and “Homşetsma” in Hemshin, but they admitted to being unaware of its origins. The participants consider Hemshin as their mother tongue they learned within the family environment and Turkish as their second language learned at school. The participants from Çamlıhemşin and Hemşin said they couldn’t trace the language’s origin because neither they nor their parents spoke it, leaving them without an environment to learn it. When asked about where the language is spoken, the participants identified Hopa, Kemalpaşa, and Borçka districts in Artvin province as primary areas. In addition, they noted significant populations along the northwest coast of the Black Sea, specifically around Sakarya with around 30,000 to 50,000 speakers, as well as in various countries like Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Russia.

Domains of Hemshin language use

To examine the domains of the Hemshin language use, the participants were asked questions about where and how often they use Hemshin. Contrary to the vagueness about the origin of the language, all Hemshin people in Hopa were so precise about whether there were things that could be only and best expressed in Hemshin. All respondents stressed that translating traditional or cultural experiences like idioms, anecdotes, jokes, and folk songs into Turkish fails to capture the same sense or warmth conveyed in Hemshin. During an interview, a 35-year-old female respondent who joined the family as a daughter-in-law talked about her experiences and explained the importance of knowing Hemshin in (1).

The participant’s reflection highlights how the Hemshin language conveys cultural nuance and humor that are often lost in translation, emphasizing its role as a repository of shared knowledge and values. Her inability to grasp the humor in Turkish underscores the exclusivity of these experiences for Hemshin speakers, illustrating the language’s role in fostering identity and belonging.

Similarly, a 48-year-old Hemshin speaker described the nature of their prayers in Hemshin. He stated that it is impossible to express those prayers in Turkish as exemplified in (2).

One participant noted that not all their prayers are religious, giving an example of a prayer rooted in Hemshin culture. Similarly, participants from Çamlıhemşin and Hemşin highlighted certain expressions unique to their language. For example, one of the participants stated the word “dodoluş” used with the Turkish helping verb “etmek” (to do) in the expression “Dodoluş etma” is used to describe someone who is so slow to fulfill something he is expected to do. The participant highlighted he cannot express the same meaning in another language. Likewise, another participant indicated that the word “ancumel” (weird) nested in Turkish expressions “ancumellik etma” (do not be weird) or “ne ancumel adamsın” (what a weird person you are) is used to describe someone who displays weird behaviors. The participant indicated that this word best describes such an individual.

The participants were asked about their frequency of Hemshin usage and if there were specific contexts where they exclusively used the language. This question pertained solely to those in the Hopa region, as individuals in Hemşin and Çamlıhemşin do not speak the language. Most of the participants (17 out of 20) in the Hopa region said they used Hemshin among family members in family gatherings and three participants said that they used both Turkish and Hemshin interchangeably in their contexts, even mixing them usually. An interview with a woman aged 45 in (3) displays how frequently they speak Hemshin in family or friend gatherings.

Excerpt (3) highlights the significant role of the Hemshin language in maintaining familial and cultural bonds within the community. The participant’s narrative underscores a conscious choice to use Hemshin exclusively during intimate family gatherings, such as evening chats around the stove. This intentional use of the mother tongue, despite bilingualism among the family members, suggests a strong emotional attachment to the language and its association with a sense of identity, belonging, and tradition.

Since the participants were bilingual speakers, they were asked whether they used Turkish and Hemshin in a mixed manner. All the respondents in Hopa commented on the reasons why Hemshin speakers engage in code-mixing when talking to one another. One participant noted that there were a substantial number of borrowed Turkish words, leading to the inevitable use of both languages in their daily interactions.

Another participant mentioned substituting Turkish equivalents for unfamiliar Hemshin words or concepts, while another noted naturally using both languages interchangeably, sometimes without even noticing the switch. This linguistic behavior, code-switching, was also evident during the interviews even when they were talking to the researcher who does not speak Hemshin. In other words, one could conclude that the participants from the Hopa region reveal typical bilingual language use behaviors as they naturally use borrowed words from Turkish and code-switch, when necessary, particularly at the lexical level. Lexical borrowing is also revealed by the Hemshin people who live in Çamlıhemşin and Hemşin and speak Turkish only. In their case, unlike the Hemshin people who live in the Hopa region and speak both languages, the direction of borrowing was from Hemshin into Turkish. The participants highlighted that many words they know such as the names of plants, animals, household tools, and so on, were originally from Hemshin. This reveals the fact that the language might have preserved its essential ecological and cultural knowledge in some domains due to traditional lifestyle and cultural practices, values, and beliefs that have survived up until the present time (Garibova & Zeynalov, 2023; Vaux, 2007). Regarding borrowed words from Hemshin, one participant mentioned they always preferred Hemshin words over their Turkish equivalents, if they knew them.

Regarding the participants’ language preference for their communication with their family members, neighbors, and/or friends, all participants from the Hopa region emphasized that they exclusively speak Hemshin. The interview revealed that the Hemshin people do not plan when to speak Hemshin, but rather this happens spontaneously. Some of the participants indicated they sometimes used Hemshin as code for their secret communication when needed. In (4), a participant described a specific time when the language became a special code for them.

In (5), a participant shared a moving moment of using Hemshin to wish his son a happy birthday, intentionally opting for his native language over Turkish. This instance supports the view that emotions are most effectively conveyed in one’s mother tongue (Pavlenko, 2002).

The final inquiry focused on the language preference of the participants in their lament songs, aiming to identify the language they felt closest to during difficult times. All the respondents in the Hopa region, with no sign of hesitation, mentioned it was in the Hemshin language. The moment this question was asked to a 75-year-old female respondent, she uttered a dirge in Hemshin as expressed in (6).

Excerpt (6) underscores the emotional and cultural significance of the Hemshin language, particularly in moments of grief. The respondent’s spontaneous dirge highlights how Hemshin serves as a natural medium for expressing profound emotions, reflecting its deep ties to identity and cultural memory.

Attitudes toward the Hemshin language

Asked about how the participants felt when they spoke Hemshin, all 20 participants in the Hopa region explained they felt very happy when they spoke their mother tongue. They also mentioned feeling most comfortable communicating in Hemshin. Many participants said, “I feel my tongue is at ease.” Moreover, they added that they spoke effortlessly in Hemshin compared to Turkish. This sentiment was echoed by a 96-year-old female respondent in (7).

Regarding attitudes, all participants across the three districts expressed positive attitudes toward Hemshin speakers, noting that the use of Hemshin by individuals outside the Black Sea region signified a sense of group membership for them. Whenever they see somebody who can speak Hemshin, they refer to him or her as “Anal indzma a,” which means “She is from us, too.”

Another indicator of Hemshin people’s group identity is their favorable attitudes toward fellow Hemshin people. The participants expressed affection, linking being a person from Hemshin with trustworthiness. In (8), a 68-year-old participant explained her perception of their group identity is illustrated.

In excerpt (8), the participant highlighted the positive attributes of the Hemshin people compared to other language speakers, indicating a sense of in-group connection among Hemshin speakers. Furthermore, when referring to the researcher, the participant expressed appreciation for the researcher’s Hemshin background by stating, “You are from us as well.” This remark further supports the positive perception of the researcher being from Hemşin, likely contributing to the participants’ increased comfort in responding to interview questions (Özsoy & Taylan, 2000).

Regarding attitudes toward preserving Hemshin, most participants expressed positivity but mentioned their sole effort to maintain the language is by speaking it to the younger generation.

As the language lacks official representation and literacy opportunities, their only effort to prevent its loss is to converse among themselves, particularly with the younger generation. While they expressed their full approval for the vitalization of the language, there were, though few (N = 4), participants who expressed their reservations and challenges that may be faced. A 48-year-old female participant who migrated from Kazakhstan and works as a cook in a guest house stated such a reservation in (9).

Excerpt (9) highlights the tension between linguistic identity and societal attitudes. The participant’s account reveals the marginalization of Hemshin compared to the acceptance of Russian which reflects broader power dynamics and language hierarchies. Her persistence in speaking Hemshin, despite opposition, underscores its role as a symbol of resistance and cultural pride, emphasizing the resilience of minority language speakers in preserving their heritage.

Another inquiry concerned whether the participants desired Hemshin to be offered as an elective course in schools situated within Hemshin communities. The perspectives in all three regions typically revolved around, as seen in (10) and (11).

These comments demonstrate the Hemshin people’s strong desire to see their language included in the school curriculum to ensure its transmission to future generations. However, as reflected in (12), a participant highlighted the underlying fear among the Hemshin people of openly expressing their views, suggesting potential social or political pressures that hinder advocacy for their linguistic rights.

In excerpt (12), the participant highlights a gendered difference in attitudes toward language education in the Hemshin language. This distinction can be understood in the context of socio-economic roles and responsibilities. Men, often employed in jobs that require adherence to national policies or as civil servants, may fear that openly advocating for teaching their heritage language in schools could lead to professional risks, such as job insecurity or other repercussions. This fear is particularly pronounced because the heritage language is not officially recognized, and expressing support for its inclusion in education could be perceived as controversial or oppositional. On the contrary, women who are typically housewives and not employed in formal jobs do not face the same professional constraints. This relative freedom enables them to express a stronger and more vocal desire for the heritage language to be taught, whether as an elective or even a compulsory subject. This difference reflects the intersection of cultural preservation with broader socio-political dynamics.

The final question of this section questioned the participants’ perceptions regarding the endangerment of Hemshin. One of the participants shared her views if their language would be lost as in (13).

In (14), another participant explained how they would feel if they completely lost their language.

In excerpt (13), the participant underscores the irreplaceable role of the Hemshin language in fostering genuine and meaningful communication. The assertion that such sincere interactions could never occur in any other language highlights the deep connection between language and emotional authenticity. This suggests that for the speaker, the Hemshin language is not just a tool for communication but a vital medium for expressing identity and maintaining close, culturally rooted relationships.

Excerpt (14) delves even deeper into the relationship between language and identity. The participant associates the loss of the Hemshin language with a profound sense of personal and societal disintegration, describing it as “the end of society.” This reflects the speaker’s perception of the language as a cornerstone of cultural and individual identity. The reference to knowing the name of a tree in both Turkish and Hemshin, but feeling its incompleteness without the Hemshin name, symbolizes the language’s role in providing a fuller, richer understanding of the world and one’s place in it. Furthermore, the participant articulates how language shapes self-expression and personal freedom, emphasizing that the loss of the ability to express oneself in Hemshin would signify a loss of authenticity and selfhood.

Both excerpts illustrate how language serves as more than a means of communication—it is a critical repository of cultural knowledge, emotional depth, and personal identity. The speakers’ expressions of loss and longing highlight the intrinsic value of the Hemshin language as a pillar of their cultural and individual existence.

Hemshin culture

Hemshin culture is very rich in songs, tales, jokes, riddles, and other elements of oral literature (Vaux et al., 1996). Asked about what is meant by Hemshin culture, all the participants in the three districts referred to things that were specific to the Hemshin people or that created their personas as their culture. Interestingly, while the Hemshin people in Çamlıhemşin and Hemşin do not speak the language, their sense of belonging to the Hemshin culture and identity appears stronger compared to those in Hopa.

When the participants in Çamlıhemşin and Hemşin were asked what is meant by Hemşin culture, they stated that there are regional markers such as food (e.g., karalahana “green cabbage,” muhlama “a traditional meal”), traditional clothes (e.g., puşi, titribal), musical instruments (Hemşin Kavalı), traditional dance (e.g., horon), festivals (e.g., Vartevor), and special houses (Hemshin Mansions), all of which function as distinct symbols of the cultural identity of the Hemshin people living in Çamlıhemşin and Hemşin. However, the Hemshin people living in Hopa do not make a similar list of cultural elements. The description of cultural symbols by the Hemshin people in the Hopa region is elaborated in (15) and (16). Both participants referred to the language itself as the main symbol of the culture.

However, a participant from Hemşin, as indicated in (17), referenced additional cultural facets such as musical instruments, traditional dances, and local festivals.

In addition, the participants living in Çamlıhemşin and Hemşin expressed several customs and beliefs as part of their culture. For instance, two participants explained their beliefs concerning how to put out a fire in an oven (e.g., a fire in the oven should not be put out by pouring water on it, but should be covered with ashes; if not, it would bring bad luck) and as to entering a house stepping on a threshold of the house (e.g., getting into or out of the house by setting foot on threshold or allowing a child to sit on threshold is considered as bad or sin), and so on. In (18), two interesting examples were given by a 65-year-old woman from Hemşin.

Regarding how the participants perceive their identity, all participants from both the speech community (Hopa) and heritage communities (Çamlıhemşin and Hemşin) expressed their Turkish national identity, while also emphasizing their Hemşin heritage identity. However, there was a slight difference between the two groups in terms of their association with the Hemshin heritage identity. While the speech community associates the Hemshin language with their heritage identity, the latter group identifies their heritage identity through cultural practices. In excerpt (19), this distinction in identification was exemplified by the portrayal of how a participant from Hopa identified himself.

Excerpt (19) highlights the participant’s deep connection to his Hemshin heritage, emphasizing the importance of culture and language as core to his identity. He expresses concern over the decline of the Hemshin language, linking it to broader societal forces like consumerism and the capitalist system. The participant’s statement reflects a personal and collective struggle to affirm existence and resist cultural erasure. His declaration, “I am from Hemşin,” embodies resilience and a commitment to maintaining identity, even when faced with challenges that threaten it.

Discussion

Research on language attitudes plays a crucial role in understanding the identity and vitality of languages. Accordingly, this study investigated how the language use and attitudes of Turkish-Hemshin bilingual speakers impact their heritage identity, as well as the vitality and preservation of their heritage language. Regarding the first question, our data indicates predominantly positive attitudes toward Hemshin. The participants expressed confidence in the possibility of transmitting Hemshin to the next generation (i.e., maintaining its use at home) and viewed it as highly desirable.

In the speech community, Hemshin was widely regarded as a key aspect of Hemshin’s identity, aligning with prior research findings (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004; Tabouret-Keller, 1997). Bucholtz and Hall (2004) make a distinction between identity as a practice, performance, and indexicality. In this study, the answers of the respondents provide evidence of their language as an identity marker in some of these aspects. While the respondents in the speech community displayed their identity via their language which can be interpreted as performance and practice, the heritage communities expressed their self-identity via their culture and traditions which can be interpreted as indexicality. However, these positive attitudes do not have great significance for language revitalization movements given that they belong to minority speakers (Sallabank, 2013).

The findings of this study revealed that the participants consistently perceived the vitality of the Hemshin language as low across all contexts, whether within speech or heritage communities. Despite this, they expressed both a desire and a commitment to revitalizing the language. Yet, language revitalization is multifaceted and deeply intertwined with socio-cultural dynamics, community involvement, and individual commitment. Hinton’s (2011) strategy of teaching endangered languages like Hemshin to both new learners and proficient speakers is essential for fostering intergenerational continuity. Yet, practical and perceptual challenges hinder such efforts. Demographic mobility is a critical issue, as many young Hemshin people have migrated to urban areas for education, work, or marriage, fragmenting language communities. Digital platforms, such as online classes and virtual gatherings, offer potential solutions by reconnecting dispersed speakers.

Another obstacle is the lack of prestige associated with Hemshin compared to dominant languages, often leading families to prioritize other languages (Austin & Sallabank, 2011). Advocacy campaigns, media representation, and culturally inclusive education can help shift societal attitudes and highlight the language’s intrinsic cultural and historical value. Youth commitment is another vital component of language revitalization. Tulloch (2004) rightly emphasizes the pivotal role young people play in preserving and revitalizing ancestral languages. However, fostering this commitment requires more than just academic courses. It involves creating spaces where young speakers can use the language naturally and meaningfully—through music, storytelling, social media, and community events. These initiatives must also align with the interests and lifestyles of modern youth, integrating traditional practices with contemporary forms of expression. Put differently, successful language revitalization requires a balanced approach that combines bottom-up and top-down efforts. While community-driven initiatives ensure authenticity and sustainability, institutional support provides the necessary resources and legitimacy.

Regarding language use in heritage communities, in Çamlıhemşin and Hemşin, Hemshin people primarily speak Turkish while incorporating Hemshin language elements as heritage markers. All the participants stated that they preferred to use the Turkish equivalences of those words only in certain situations (e.g., if it is not understood by the listener) adding that the Turkish translations would never give the same meaning to them. On the other hand, the Hemshin people in Hopa always use Hemshin in family gatherings, and with friends, as a code for secrets and gossip, and a tool for the negotiation of ethnic identity. Although the dominant language of the community is Turkish, all Hemshin people in Hopa tend to use Turkish when they believe their interlocutor speaks only Turkish, aligning with MacKinnon’s (2010) argument that speakers of minority languages opt for the dominant language if the likelihood of the interlocutor speaking it exceeds 50% at the start of an interaction. In this regard, the impact of demographic realities on language attitudes may not be always proportional (MacKinnon, 2010).

As to the language use patterns, code switches, which naturally occur in bilingual contexts, are reported to be common in in-group and inter-group communication among the Hemshin people in the Hopa region. The use of code switches between Turkish and Hemshin is probably due to the linguistic convergence of structural and lexical elements and/or pragmatic conventions in the minds of the speakers (O’Shannessy, 2011). Alternatively, Hemshin speakers may be code-switching to alter their speech styles so that they can socially align more with those of their Turkish-speaking interlocutors to receive social approval (Backus, 2005).

Regarding the second research question, the participants’ responses suggest a link between language use, attitudes, and the maintenance of both language and heritage identity. Concerning the link between language use and ethnic identity, Brown (2011) highlights that the use of language is “the essence of ethnic identity” (p. 33) which is also evident in the case of Hemshin people in Hopa in the present study. That is, the identity function of language serves as a significant motivator for language vitality and maintenance in Hopa.

As to the relation between language and identity, Liebkind (2006) argues that ethnic identity does not necessarily correlate with language use for all ethnic groups, the loss of language, in other words, does not ultimately lead to the loss of belongingness toward the ethnic identity. This situation is true for the Çamlıhemşin and Hemşin communities who have also demonstrated to favor their ethnic identity with all their responses to the interview questions even though they do not speak the language. That is, markers of Hemshin cultural identity are more prevalent in Çamlıhemşin and Hemşin regions compared to Hopa. This aligns with Phinney (1992), who suggests that cultural identification arises from shared values, attitudes, and behaviors, fostering a sense of belonging and commitment to the ethnocultural group. Besides, attitudes are related to the identity function of a language since attitudes accompany and construct individual identities (Tabouret-Keller, 1997). The participants in this study show regional differences only in terms of linguistic identity and cultural identity. Since the participants in Çamlıhemşin and Hemşin lack linguistic identity, they are more inclined to hold to their cultural and ethnic identities. The speech community in Hopa, on the other hand, naturally has a more linguistic identity that favors language maintenance and ethnic identity than cultural identity.

If identity encompasses various aspects like national, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic identities, it is clear that the Hemshin people across these three Black Sea regions share similar ethnic and cultural identities. In the current study, the overall responses indicate that the ethnic identity of Hemshin people in Hopa is stronger compared to Camlıhemşin or Hemşin people, which can be explained by the fact that heritage language is a key factor in ethnic identity (Canagarajah, 2013) and competence in the mother tongue is perceived as a linguistic expression of the one’s identity (Schreiber & Sitaridou, 2018). Another reason for Hemshin people in Hopa depict a stronger ethnic identity compared to Çamlıhemşin and Hemşin community could be explained in parallel with Giles and Johnson’s (1987) ethnic identity theory which highlights the conditions on which an ethnic community feels a need to preserve its language and/or dialect when encountered with another community. Living close to the Laz and Georgian communities, Hemshin people in Hopa likely strengthened their sense of identity through interaction. Language serves as a means to express identification and mark group affiliation and boundaries among communities. In this study, bilingual Hemshin–Turkish speakers live with a dual identity, encompassing both their Turkish identity and heritage identity. Living in a bilingual community where two cultures and languages coexist with positive attitudes, Hemshin speakers preserve their bilingual culture and identity without necessarily assimilating completely into mainstream society (Hamers & Blanc, 2004).

Conclusion

In this study, we have analyzed the language use behaviors and attitudes of Hemshin speakers toward their language. In addition, we have investigated whether there is a connection between language use and attitudes and the maintenance of both the language and heritage identity. Our findings reveal that the Hemshin speakers hold positive attitudes toward their language and always prefer to use it within their family domain. This confirms the importance of family in heritage language maintenance (Melo-Pfeifer, 2015).

Furthermore, the results of our study indicate that there is a connection between language use behaviors and attitudes and the maintenance of heritage identity. While the use of Hemshin is highly esteemed as a critical element of ethnic identity in Hopa (i.e., the speech community), it is not the language but the cultural practices (i.e., shared values, attitudes, and behaviors) in Hemshin heritage communities (i.e., Çamlıhemşin and Hemşin) that promote their commitment to their ethnocultural group, namely their heritage identity (Phinney, 1992; Yim & Clément, 2021). However, urbanization and migration have weakened these cultural ties, especially among third-generation members, who show reduced familiarity with Hemshin’s vocabulary and traditions. This trend underscores the need for linguists to view language not as an isolated phenomenon but as an integral cultural tool deeply embedded within a larger web of practices and identity formation. To fully understand and support the maintenance of linguistic and cultural identities, language should be studied in conjunction with the cultural practices, social structures, and values that sustain it.

The resilience of Hemshin in Hopa reflects an ecological perspective (Garner, 1986, 1988; Haugen, 1972) where a multilingual environment and strong community networks contribute to language vitality. Future research could investigate these ecological dynamics, such as intergenerational relationships and localized cultural practices, and explore whether similar patterns exist in other multilingual contexts. Such studies would provide valuable insights for language revitalization efforts globally.

The study opens new pathways for understanding the relationship between language use, attitudes, and the maintenance or shift of heritage identity, components of a highly intertwined system. As Sallabank (2013) notes, negative attitudes toward a language can both result from and contribute to language shift. The findings, therefore, emphasize the importance of fostering positive attitudes and active engagement in language use to mitigate language endangerment.

This study has broader implications for endangered languages beyond the Hemshin context, highlighting the significance of family, community, and cultural practices in preserving heritage languages. Future research could be conducted within the framework of Family Language Policies to explore how families make decisions about language use in the home and how these policies influence language maintenance. Investigating the role of parental attitudes, behaviors, and strategies in shaping children’s linguistic practices could provide valuable insights. In addition, studies could examine the interplay between family language policies and broader societal factors such as education and public policy, offering strategies for effective institutional support. Exploring the influence of globalization and digitalization on family-level language practices could also reveal innovative ways to safeguard endangered languages in an increasingly connected world.