Is the heritage language like a second language?

Abstract

Many heritage speakers (bilinguals in a minority language context) turn to the second language (L2) classroom to expand their knowledge of the heritage language. Critical questions arise as to how their linguistic knowledge compares to that of post puberty L2 learners. Focusing on recent experimental research on grammatical domains typically affected in both L2 learners and heritage speakers, this article addresses whether exposure to the family language since birth even under reduced input conditions leads to more native-like linguistic knowledge in heritage speakers as opposed to L2 learners with a later age of acquisition of the language, how differences in input and language learning experience determine the behavioral manifestations of linguistic knowledge, and whether formal instruction in the classroom is beneficial to heritage speakers. I argue that the extension of theoretical frameworks and methodologies from SLA has significantly advanced the field of heritage language acquisition, but deeper understanding of these speakers will also need more fruitful integration of the psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic factors that contribute to the acquisition and maintenance of heritage languages.

Heritage language anxiety and majority language anxiety among Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands

“…Immigrant language context can thus accommodate more emotional and conflicting situations than the instructed FL/SL context. Sociopolitically, ML is the language that has official status in a country, while HL has minority language status (Montrul, 2012). In sociolinguistic terms, immigrant parents are the first generation, their children second and their grandchildren are the third generation (Silva-Corvalán, 1994).…”

Untitled

“…Montrul (2012) argues that beyond differing age of onset of bilingualism, variations in HL and L2 learners' settings of initial acquisition (naturalistic vs. instructed), modes of input (aural vs. aural and written), and frequency of input (more vs. less activation) make the groups fundamentally different. Additionally, unlike their L2 counterparts, HS generally undergo a certain degree of attrition and reanalysis in their home language due to a wide range of factors, including incomplete acquisition (Montrul, 2011), low levels of literacy (Pascual y Cabo & Rothman, 2012), and lack of activation of the heritage language (Putnam & Sánchez, 2013).…”

Challenges in maintaining a heritage language

“…For an easy understanding, Montrul (2012) presented a table list on the major differences and similarities of both heritage speakers and L2 learners. It is very evident that both receive variable and perhaps non-optimal amounts of input in restricted environments.…”

“…It is very evident that both receive variable and perhaps non-optimal amounts of input in restricted environments. At the same time they differ in the timing of input (early in heritage speakers and late in L2 learners), the setting (home with naturalistic exposure in heritage speakers versus exposure via instruction in the classroom in L2 learners), and the modality of the input, which is predominantly aural in heritage speakers and written and (aural) through literacy in post puberty L2 learners (Montrul, 2012). …”