The Study of Heritage Language Development From a Bilingualism and Social Justice Perspective

Abstract

Using the lenses of bilingualism and social justice, I reflect on relevant conceptual and methodological issues encountered in the study of the linguistic development of heritage language speakers. Themes examined include the early but varying timing of heritage language learning; the surrounding linguistic environment, including the link between parental input and linguistic outcomes and heritage language speakers’ bilingualism, multilingualism, and multilectalism; the framing of literacy in the minority language; and the unique and language‐shaping experience of minoritization, often an outcome of immigration. I argue that bilingualism is gradient and that better measurement of relevant variables—particularly those related to timing, input/exposure, and literacy—can invigorate the study of heritage language development and make new and more robust insights possible. I propose that heritage speakers and their languages must be understood as connected to minoritized communities and to the experience of inequitable multilingualism.

Early Language Environments Predict Aspects of Explicit Language Awareness Development

“…Moreover, there has been much discussion in recent literature in the field of bilingualism about the need to consider the multidimensionality of bilingualism in order to better understand the cognitive consequences of bilingualism (e.g., Abutalebi & Green, ; Bialystok, ; Green & Abutalebi, ; Kroll & Bialystok, ; Laine & Lehtonen, ; Luk & Bialystok, ; Surrain & Luk, ; Takahesu Tabori, Mech, & Atagi, ). For instance, there have been calls to treat bilingualism as a continuous variable (e.g., Luk & Bialystok, ), to examine the contexts of bilinguals’ language use (e.g., Abutalebi & Green, ; Green & Abutalebi, ), and more generally, to consider the diversity in language experience that exists among bilinguals (e.g., Flores, Gürel, & Putnam, ; Ortega, ; Takahesu Tabori et al., ). Similarly, findings from this study—as well as those from others (e.g., Akhtar et al., ; Howard et al., ; Menjivar & Akhtar, ; Rojo & Echols, )—suggest that monolinguals may not be a homogenous group either, much like bilinguals.…”

Redefining Language Death: Evidence From Moribund Grammars

“…Of course, it is possible to conjecture that HLs are incompletely acquired , or incompletely mastered (Montrul, ), thus resulting in grammars that are different, or deficient when compared with monolinguals. We follow Putnam and Sánchez () and agree that a term such as incomplete acquisition is highly problematic, since a measure of incomplete acquisition presupposes ultimate attainment of the L1 (see also Ortega, ). Although we agree with the distinction between changes that have a lasting impact on representations generated in the competence grammar versus those that are performance‐oriented, the former are rare exceptions rather than regular occurrences.…”

The Roles of Age, Attitude, and Use in First Language Development and Attrition of Turkish–English Bilinguals

“…In this context, the importance of various aspects of input and exposure has often been stressed (e.g., Kupisch & Rothman, ). In particular, it has been suggested that the quality of the input may play a more important role than its pure quantity—being exposed to the language less frequently but in a variety of settings (e.g., domestic, educational, professional), from different speakers and in different modalities (spoken vs. written) may be more beneficial than highly frequent exposure but with few interlocutors, in limited contexts or in only one modality (e.g., Flores, Santos, Jesus, & Marques, ; Jia & Paradis, ; Kupisch & Rothman, ; Unsworth et al., ; see also Ortega, ). A better understanding of the interaction of age at acquisition and other factors is thus necessary both to increase our theoretical understanding of bilingual development and to support bilingual families and communities.…”