User:YuanchenBao/Heritage language learning
This is the sandbox for group 2 of Linguistics 428 at UNC.
Breakdown of which subsections of the article will be edited and/or added and which team members are responsible for which sections or subsection:
- Edit and complement to the sections about input (Blaine)
- Add a new subsection "Heritage Language Grammar Acquisition" to the "Acquisition Theory" (Blaine)
- Add new section "Types of Heritage Speakers" (Esther)
- Develop the section on cross-linguistic influence (Esther--editing and adding to section)
- Reorganize “Contexts of Heritage Language Learning” and potentially change the name of this heading so that it describes its subheadings better. Or get rid of this heading and make the subheadings the main headings (Taylor & Esther)
- Effects of Immigration (Esther--editing, reorganizing and developing)
- Make "Overview: Before a learning program begin" a new heading (Taylor)
- Move "Various obstacles for education programs" under the heading "Heritage language pedagogy" and edit/add information (Taylor)
Types of Heritage Speakers
[edit]Heritage speakers can be subdivided into two categories depending on when they acquire the heritage language and the majority language respectively. There are simultaneous bilingual heritage speakers and sequential bilingual heritage speakers.[1] Simultaneous bilingual heritage speakers acquire the two languages at the same time, while sequential bilingual heritage speakers acquire the majority language after acquiring the heritage language.[1]
Simultaneous Bilingual Heritage Speakers
[edit]From early childhood, simultaneous bilingual heritage speakers receive a significantly reduced amount of input in their heritage language, and they tend to use the majority language more often, especially when associating with peers who do not share their heritage language.[2] As a result, the child's initial ability to speak the heritage language begins to weaken, and before long, the majority language becomes the dominant language.[2] Because the heritage language is not fully developed in childhood, simultaneous bilingual heritage speakers often continue to struggle with their heritage language throughout the rest of their lifetime.[2] Benmamoun et al. (2013) found that simultaneous bilingual heritage speakers of Spanish do not understand certain grammatical properties of the language as well as sequential bilingual heritage speakers.[1] Specifically, the simultaneous bilinguals struggle to distinguish the preterite, which is the simple past tense (e.g. Ralph played), and the imperfect, which is the past tense used to describe an ongoing activity (e.g. Ralph was playing).[1]
Sequential Bilingual Heritage Speakers
[edit]Sequential bilingual heritage speakers can either be immigrants who moved to a new country during early childhood or children of immigrants that mainly speak the heritage language at home.[3] Typically, these heritage speakers are predominantly exposed to the heritage language until they go to school.[3] As a result, their foundation for the heritage language is stronger, which allows them to demonstrate higher accuracy while speaking the heritage language. In addition to Benmamoun et al.'s (2013) finding that sequential bilinguals understand the Spanish preterite/imperfect contrast better, Lee (2013) found that sequential bilingual heritage speakers of Korean use relative clauses in Korean more accurately than simultaneous bilinguals.[3] According to Lee (2013), even if sequential bilingual heritage speakers experience a decline in mastery of the heritage language, they are still more likely to use and understand the language better than their simultaneous bilingual counterparts.[3]
Heritage Language Grammar Acquisition
[edit]Recent linguistic studies have proposed many grammatical areas that are affected by heritage language grammar such as pronunciation, vocabulary, morphosyntax, word order, the use of conjunctions, and many others.[4] Although sometimes heritage speakers display a delayed acquisition or a gap in their linguistic knowledge, it is not the case that heritage speakers acquire a language in a chaotic system. Many characteristics of heritage grammars are reminiscent of systematic linguistic processes found in language shifts under other circumstances; for instance, the process of simplification in language contact situations, the emergence of new linguistic varieties, and diachronic language change.[4]
Phonetics and Phonology
[edit]Heritage speakers usually perform better in phonological competence in contrast to other aspects of the grammatical system (Benmamoun et al., 2013).[1] However, heritage language phonology is still perceived as containing non-native and non-standard features. In Au, Knightly, Jun, and Oh (2002) and Oh, Jun, Knightly, and Au's (2003) study, heritage speakers are found to be much more nativelike in comparison to L2 learners although they also have some non-native phonological features.[5] This finding was confirmed by Yeni-Komshian, Flege, and Liu (2003) in their studies of pronunciation proficiency in the L1 and L2 Korean-English bilinguals.[6] However, in Godson's (2004) study of vowel production in the speech of Western Armenian heritage speakers, the quality of some vowels was different from the same vowels produced by monolingual or highly proficient bilingual Western Armenian speakers, even though some transfer from English in Western Armenian vowels was also revealed. Godson's study provided an explanation for heritage speakers' non-native accent; heritage speakers usually retain the phonetic values of both vowels and consonants of their heritage language. Further studies are needed to establish measurable systematic differences between monolinguals and heritage speakers in terms of phonology and pronunciation.[4]
Morphology
[edit]Morphology is the most described and studied aspect of heritage language grammar because morphological deficits can be found in either oral form or written form (Polinsky, 2019).[7] Heritage speakers usually face difficulty producing the correct form of agreement marking, case marking, tense marking, gender marking, feature-matching, and many others. Polinsky's (2008) study with respect to heritage speakers of Russian showed that heritage speakers lack knowledge of gender assignment and exhibit a high rate of errors when categorizing the nominal gender feature.[8] Agreement marking has also gained a lot of attention in the study of heritage speakers' morphological competence. Benmamoun et al. (2008) found that heritage speakers of Arabic tend to use the wrong pattern of agreement and have up to 30% error rates, whereas the native speakers have almost 100% accuracy.[9] In verbal domains, heritage speakers of Russian and Spanish both face the difficulty of distinguishing perfective and imperfective forms (Montrul, 2002).[10] Case marking is another aspect that heritage speakers usually have errors in heritage language grammar. Polinsky's (2007) study of Russian heritage speakers has found that Russian heritage speakers tend to mark two case distinctions while native speakers of Russian mark six case distinctions.[11] Benmamoun et al. (2013) proposed that morphological deficits are asymmetric in nominal morphology and verbal morphology; heritage speakers make more errors when using nominal words in comparison to verbs. The standpoint was derived from Polinsky's (2005) finding that heritage language speakers have better command of verbs than of nouns and adjectives.[4]
Vocabulary
[edit]Heritage vocabulary learning varies from different speakers' language proficiency and different types of heritage speakers. Polinsky (2007) indicates that heritage speakers most often know words related to objects used in the home and childhood vocabulary. Heritage speakers usually face the difficulty of producing words that are used less frequently at home. Moreover, the positive correlations between vocabulary proficiency and structural accuracy were also found; heritage speakers who know more basic words of 200 items showed better competence of agreement marking and case marking in their speech.
Acquisition Theories
[edit]information from the "Acquisition Theories" heading in the original article
Incomplete Acquisition
[edit]information from original article
Delayed Acquisition
[edit]information from original article
Input
[edit](Underlined text is from original article)
Theories of acquisition involving variations of input postulate that heritage language learners' production of the heritage language diverges from that of their monolingual peers who speak the same language because the two groups are exposed to different dialects and quantities of input.[12] In terms of the comparison with child bilingualism, Montrul (2010) posited the difference between heritage children and bilingual children and pointed out the restrictions on access to heritage language. As a home or family language, heritage language children rarely have access to education in their heritage language, which may give rise to their variations of linguistic competence and literacy.[4] Moreover, the incipient changes in the input also provides evidence for the patterns of language maintenance in the variety used by heritage language speakers. In Scontras, Fuchs, and Polinsky's (2015) study in the outcome of heritage language, the importance of determining the input that heritage language speakers receive is approached. By contrasting with the concurrent heritage language speech, the non-standard properties in the heritage language in the first generation grammar can be observed to show the result of reanalysis and innovation.[2]
Quantity of Input
[edit]Heritage language learners may also have a smaller quantity of input than their monolingual peers because the heritage language is only found in a restricted number of contexts and with fewer interlocutors. Citing statistics found in studies on hearing children with deaf parents, Flores and Barbosa (2014) posit that bilingual heritage language learners need a minimum of 5 to 10 hours of interaction per week with the language to develop native-like proficiency. Hours of input may be particularly restricted once the heritage speaker switches to the dominant language.
Dialect Variation
[edit]subheading under "Input" from original article
Theories surrounding dialect variation suggest that errors or deviations from the standard dialect made by a heritage language learner may reflect the acquisition of a non-standard variety or informal register of the heritage language, which include variations on certain properties or the lack of certain properties found in the standard dialect. Heritage language learners are often only exposed to one dialect or colloquial variety of the heritage language, unlike their monolingual peers who interact with a standard monolingual dialect found in formal instruction. Furthermore, certain grammatical properties are only present in the standard dialect or are used infrequently in the colloquial dialect. Pires and Rothman use the expression, "missing-input competence divergence," to refer to instances when a grammatical property is missing from the colloquial variety.
The dramatic difference between standard and colloquial dialects is particularly evident in cases of verbal morphology, the clitic system, the subjunctive, and inflected infinitives in Brazilian Portuguese. Pires and Rothman (2009) found that Brazilian Portuguese heritage learners do not acquire inflected infinitives because their input does not "robustly instantiate these forms". Similarly, Dominguez (2009) found that deviations in the use and distribution of indicative and subjunctive forms that were in the output of heritage Spanish speakers were also found in the children's input (parental speech).
In certain cases, heritage language learners receive their input from first-generation migrants who have shown effects of attrition in certain domains. Consequently, the language learner would be missing grammatical properties in their input as a result of the interlocutor's attrition and would replicate these errors in their output. Furthermore, Rothman (2007) also argued that the study of highly competent heritage language learners can reveal the dialectal variation and language change over generations by looking at the quantities of input and other social factors.[13]
Pires and Rothman (2009) also claim that due to their "inborn faculty of language," children automatically acquire the grammar found in their input. Therefore, in conclusion, it is not a deficient ability to acquire the language, but rather, the absence of, or limited access, to certain properties in the child's input that leads to errors in language production. Without access to a standard dialect of the target language often found in formal academic contexts, heritage language learners continue to make these production errors.
Cross-linguistic Influence
[edit](underlined text is the original text)
Since heritage language speakers must process two languages, they tend to demonstrate cross-linguistic influence, which may contribute to heritage speakers' competence divergence. Cross-linguistic influence is when heritage language learners show a tendency to overuse grammatical properties that are found in both the heritage language and the dominant language. Furthermore, heritage language learners may prefer grammatical structures from the dominant language and transfer them into the heritage language. There are different categories of cross-linguistic influence, including underproduction and overcorrection. Underproduction is when a speaker avoids grammatical structures that are not found in the dominant language,[14] while overcorrection is when a speaker over-emphasizes the differences between two languages.[15]
With increased fluency, the instances of cross-linguistic influence generally decrease.[16] However according to Anderssen et al. (2018), fluency in a language can play a role in whether a heritage speaker demonstrates underproduction or overcorrection.[15] In their study, heritage speakers with lower fluency demonstrated underproduction more often, while heritage speakers with higher fluency demonstrated overcorrection more.[15] Specifically, their study focused on Americans, who were heritage speakers of Norwegian. The heritage speakers could choose whether to use a possessive-noun or noun-possessive structure while speaking Norwegian. For example, they could either say "min venn" (possessive-noun) or "venn-en min" (noun-possessive) to say "my friend."[15] The speakers who were more fluent wanted to make it clear that they were speaking Norwegian; as a result, they demonstrated overcorrection by overusing the noun-possessive structure, which is not found in English.[15] Meanwhile, the heritage speakers who were not as fluent in Norwegian avoided the noun-possessive structure and tended rely on the possessive-noun structure, which is also found in English.[15]
The Motivation Behind Learning a Heritage Language
[edit]This is originally a subheading in the article (Overview: Before a Program Begins). The second-to-last sentence has been moved from the section about immigration to this section.
Heritage language learning is generally an effort to recover one's cultural identity, and is therefore linked to the language loss experienced by immigrant and indigenous populations. Immigration and colonialism around the world have created communities of people who speak languages other than the dominant language at home. Their minority status means that they must navigate the effects of linguistic difference, and the expression of culture, ethnicity, and values through language.
Heritage learners often cite a desire to connect with their cultural heritage as a major motivation for studying their heritage language. However, depending on whether the heritage language is a indigenous language or a colonial language, the motivation can also shift. Learning as indigenous language is often motivated by a tie to the person's culture and identity while the motivation of learning a colonial language often has some additional aspects.[17] They may be motivated by the global prominence and potential career advantages of some heritage languages. As both major immigrant destinations and exporters of the world's dominant language, the United States, Canada, Western Europe, and Australia are home to large populations of heritage language speakers. A study conducted by the National Heritage Language Resource Center (UCLA) shows that in the United States, heritage speakers' interest in their home language tends to wane as they enter school, but may rise again in the later teenage years, prompting the decision to study it in college. Meanwhile, indigenous populations in Australia and the Americas also teach their own languages as heritage languages, attempting to revitalize them after the effects of colonial occupation.
Effects of Immigration
[edit]Learning a Heritage Language Abroad
[edit]This information is being moved from the lead section to here
Heritage languages can be learned in various contexts, including public school instruction and language courses organized by a community which speaks the particular language during after-school hours or on the weekend.[18] When someone is engaged in informal heritage language learning, they are acquiring a language from a particular ethnolinguistic group that traditionally speaks the language, or from someone whose family historically spoke the language. Formal heritage language instruction occurs inside of a classroom, where learners are taught a language that is being used inside of the home or among members of their own ethnic group.[18] Language programs that include Saturday schools and courses that happen outside of school hours are programs where children are encouraged to further develop and improve their heritage language proficiency.
Challenges for Immigrants Learning a Heritage Language
[edit]The availability of heritage language education could pose a challenge because the distribution of immigrant language education worldwide largely reflects immigration patterns; for example, Spanish and Chinese are more likely to be taught as heritage languages abroad.[19] The language profile of a single immigrant community can also vary due to the presence of different dialects, which can lead to another obstacle in meeting community needs.[19] In addition, ebb and flow in a country's immigrant populations can also lead to significant variation in the abilities of heritage learners in a single classroom.[20]
In Yuri Yamasaki's (2010) study, it was found that the language instruction immigrant children receive in the classroom poses another challenge. The instruction often does not accurately reflect how the language is used in the native country.[21] Conducting a study of Nikkei (descendants of Japanese immigrants in Peru) students at Colegio El Agustino, a small school in Lima, Peru, Yamasaki found that the Japanese taught at the school was quite formal.[21] The instruction was so formal that Nikkei students who learned informal Japanese while visiting Japan would be corrected for using the language in an informal way when they returned to school in Peru.[21]
Heritage Language Competency
[edit]The manner and place in which a language is acquired will play a role in determining one's competency in it.[22] The results of Yamasaki's study can confirm this because they show that there is a difference between the Japanese learned in school and the Japanese learned outside of school. As Yamasaki discovered, the Nikkei students tended to learn their heritage language better outside of school.[21] In other words, their interactions with their family and friends had a more significant impact on their language learning than the classroom did.
It is also expected that heritage speakers will speak their heritage language more fluently if they are exposed to the language in the native country.[1] Thus, immigrants who immigrate to a foreign country as young children are likely to speak their heritage language better than their foreign-born counterparts.[1] In addition, according to Benmamoun et al. (2013), if heritage speakers do not speak the majority language before age five, they tend to show a slightly higher level of heritage language competence during adolescence.[1]
Heritage language pedagogy
[edit]keep the description that's already in the article
Methods
[edit]This is a subheading from the original article
Heritage and foreign language teaching
[edit]This is a subheading from the original article
Various obstacles for education programs
[edit]This is a subheading from the original article. It is currently under "Contexts of Heritage Learning," but we hope to move it here and add to it
The studying and teaching of indigenous heritage languages stands at odds with the colonial governments' earlier attempts at forced cultural assimilation. The process of language loss accelerated by colonial policies and practices means that many indigenous languages are faced with the threat of extinction. The effort to teach them as heritage languages intersects with broader language revitalization projects. While learners of immigrant languages are likely to have at least partial knowledge of their language from an early age, indigenous language learners may never have spoken their languages before they began learning them in a formal setting. In order for the children to go beyond the verbal knowledge and development of their heritage in the areas of reading and writing they are going to need education programs to help.
Heritage language is often the most verbally used language in a child’s home, however there is often still a need for an educational component in the realms of reading and writing for a heritage learner in a non-dominant culture to be able to grow in their use of the language.[23] When trying to implement education in these languages it is further complicated by social stigma, and the feelings of shame or inadequacy that some indigenous people may associate with their language due to colonial intervention. Because of the past afflictions placed on many heritage languages the need for education in this area to remove these prejudices is important to help give the children confidence and a desire to use and continue to learn the minority language they may be learning from their parents at home.[23] Adult speakers coming from a legacy such as that of Canada's residential schools (a project for assimilating indigenous peoples), whose negative psychological effects have been reported by Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, may be unable or unwilling to pass their language on to their children.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S. & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3-4), 129-181. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1515/tl-2013-0009
- ^ a b c d Scontras, G.; Fuchs, Z.; Polinsky, M. (2015). "Heritage language and linguistic theory". Frontiers in Psychology. 6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01545. ISSN 1664-1078.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ a b c d Lee, T. (2013). "Variation among heritage speakers: Sequential vs. simultaneous bilinguals". Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages. 14: 1–26.
- ^ a b c d e Montrul, S. (2010). "Current Issues in Heritage Language Acquisition" (PDF). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics: 4.
- ^ Knightly, L. M.; Jun, S.; Oh, J. S.; Au, T. K. (2003). "Production Benefits of Childhood Overhearing". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 114 (1): 465–474. doi:10.1121/1.1577560. ISSN 0001-4966.
- ^ Yeni-Komshian, G. H.; Flege, J. E.; Liu, S. (2000). "Pronunciation Proficiency in the First and Second Languages of Korean–English Bilinguals". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 3 (2): 131–149. doi:10.1017/s1366728900000225. ISSN 1366-7289.
- ^ Polinsky, M. (2019). "Undertsanding Heritage Languages". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi:10.1017/S1366728919000245 – via Research Gate.
- ^ Polinsky, M. "Gender Under Incomplete Acquisition: Heritage Speakers' Knowledge of Noun Categorization". Heritage Language Journal – via Research Gate.
- ^ Benmamoun, E., Albirini, A., Saadah, E., & Montrul, S. (2008, June). Agreement and Plural Features in Heritage Arabic Speakers. Paper presented at the Second Heritage Language Summer Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
- ^ Montrul, S. (2002-04-XX). "Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 5 (01). doi:10.1017/S1366728902000135. ISSN 1366-7289.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Polinsky, M. (2007). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian.Journal of Slavic Linguis-tics, 14, 191–262.
- ^ Flores, C.; Barbosa, P. (2014-06-01). "When Reduced Input Leads to Delayed Acquisition: A Study on the Acquisition of Clitic Placement by Portuguese Heritage Speakers". International Journal of Bilingualism. 18 (3): 304–325. doi:10.1177/1367006912448124. ISSN 1367-0069.
- ^ Rothman, Jason (2007-12-XX). "Heritage Speaker Competence Differences, Language Change, and Input Type: Inflected Infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese". International Journal of Bilingualism. 11 (4): 359–389. doi:10.1177/13670069070110040201. ISSN 1367-0069.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Schachter, J. (1974), An Error in Error Analysis. Language Learning, 24: 205–214. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00502.
- ^ a b c d e f Anderssen, M., Lundquist, B., & Westergaard, M. (2018). "Cross-linguistic Similarities and Differences in Bilingual Acquisition and Attrition: Possessives and Double Definiteness in Norwegian Heritage Language." Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(4), 748-764. doi:10.1017/S1366728918000330
- ^ Lee, T. (2016). "Dominant language transfer in the comprehension of L2 learners and heritage speakers". International Journal of Applied Linguistics (in Korean). 26 (2): 190–210. doi:10.1111/ijal.12089. ISSN 1473-4192.
- ^ Kong, G. (2011). "The Roles of Attitude, Motivation, and Identity in Heritage Language Learning Among Korean Americans". Studies in Applied Linguistics & TESOL. 11 (2).
- ^ a b Hummel, K. (2014). Introducing Second Language Acquisition: perspectives and practices. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
- ^ a b Kagan, O. (2012). Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education. SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 1048–1053. ISBN 9781412981521.
- ^ Koshiba, K.; Kurata, N. (2012). "Language Identities of Japanese Home-background Speakers and their Language Learning Needs". Japanese Studies. 32 (3): 357–375. doi:10.1080/10371397.2012.730481.
- ^ a b c d Yamasaki, Y. (2010). "Conflicted Attitudes Toward Heritage: Heritage Language Learning of Returnee Adolescents from Japan at a Nikkei School in Lima, Peru". Critical Asian Studies. 42: 105 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
- ^ Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 25–26. ISBN 9780674066137.
- ^ a b Pascual y Cabo, D.; Prada, J.; Pereira, K. L. (2017). "Effects of Community Service‐Learning on Heritage Language Learners' Attitudes Toward Their Language and Culture". Foreign Language Annals. 50 (1): 71–83.