Heritage Languages and Language Policy

KENDALL A. KING AND JOHANNA ENNSER-KANANEN

Defi ning Heritage Languages

The term heritage language (HL) was fi rst used in the Canadian context to refer to any “language other than English and French,” and intended to reference the languages spoken by indigenous (First Nation) people or by immigrants (Cummins, 1991, pp. 601–2). Clyne (1991) modifi ed the defi nition for the Australian context to include any language other than English (LOTE). US researchers and policy-makers adopted this version in subsequent years.

While HL is often taken to be the language used in home or familial contexts (Campbell & Peyton, 1998), others point to HL’s broader cultural associations and signifi cance. Fishman (1999) further broadens the defi nition of HL, suggesting that HL can refer to any “language of personal relevance other than English” (cited in Van Deusen-Scholl, 2003, p. 216). Kondo-Brown (2003) synthesizes Wharry’s (1993) term “ancestral” and Fishman’s (2001) three subcategories of HL: HL refers to any ancestral language, including those that are indi-genous (e.g., Navajo or Ojibwe), colonial (e.g., Dutch or German in the USA), and immigrant (e.g., Hmong or Somali in the USA); thus the HL might or might not “be a language regularly used in the home and the community” (p. 1).

The label “heritage” has been problematized as outdated and linked with primitivism (e.g., Baker & Jones, 1998). Indeed, “heritage” suggests a trait or asset gained through birth, such as property or DNA, when language is not fi xed but rather the product of interaction. Baker and Jones (1998) also note that alternatives like ethnic and ancestral language hold similar connotations while, as Van Deusen-Scholl (2003) points out, primary and native language often refl ect inaccurate assessments of language competence. Outside of North America, the terms allochthonous language, home language, and language of origin are in wider use (Van Deusen-Scholl, 2003). In Europe, an important distinction is made between indigenous or regional minorities (RM), whose (language) rights are often legally protected, and refugee or immigrant minorities (IM), who generally do not enjoy the same status (Extra & Gorter, 2001). Despite efforts of the Council of Europe to raise the status of minority languages (MLs), many remain endangered (De Bot & Gorter, 2005). Similarly, in the USA, the position of many HLs remains fragile (Van Deusen-Scholl, 2003).

Defi ning HL Learners

HL learners are often differentiated into those who identify culturally with the HL versus those who speak it at home (Valdés, 2001). Similarly, Kondo-Brown (2003) points out that defi ning oneself as a HL learner often depends on identity orientation rather than linguistic profi ciency. Van Deusen-Scholl (1998, 2003), in turn, suggests a distinction between heritage learners and learners with a heritage motivation, which aligns with Carreira’s (2004) labels “HLL1” and “HLL2.” Carreira (2004) also argues that a defi nition of HL learners has to take “identity, language, and family background” into consideration (p. 18).

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Edited by Carol A. Chapelle.© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0500

2 heritage languages and language policy

In the USA, HL learners have been defi ned more narrowly as those who were raised in non-English-speaking homes, who have receptive or productive HL skills, and are to some degree bilingual (Valdés, 2001). These individuals have often received all their formal schooling in English with limited opportunities to develop HL literacy skills. In turn, Wiley (2001) suggests a more socially contextualized defi nition of HL learners and stresses the importance of defi nitions that serve to empower HL learners. These defi nitions are import-ant as they “undergird decisions about course and program design, materials selection, placement and assessment of students, and teacher training” (Carreira, 2004, p. 2).

HL learners represent an extremely diverse group. In the USA, by far the largest and fastest growing HL population are Latinos, a group comprising greatly different Spanish profi ciency levels, cultural backgrounds, as well as varied dialects, goals, and needs (Van Deusen-Scholl, 2003). While much of the research and policy work has focused on this population, other HLs, including Korean, Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Persian, and Urdu, have received growing attention in recent years.

US Language Policy for Heritage Languages

US language policy (LP) for HLs has expanded rapidly in the last decade concomitant with growing recognition of a long-standing contradiction in language and education policy. Specifi cally, the great majority of HL speakers are schooled primarily if not entirely in English (and as a result transition to English dominance or monolingualism), and then later taught a “foreign” language (FL) in high school, college, or both, often with limited success (Wright, 2007). Most LP initiatives for HLs recognize that traditional foreign lan-guage classes are inappropriate for HL learners (Carreira, 2004) as they fail to build effec-tively upon the linguistic and cultural competencies that HLs have gained outside of formal schooling.

HL education policies also seek to harness the linguistic competence in HL communities as a national resource. Following 9/11, language competence was recognized as a critical and long-neglected US national security issue as it became clear that there were insuffi cient numbers of qualifi ed individuals fl uent in “critical languages” such as Arabic or Korean. Cultivation and training of US citizens with HL backgrounds were viewed as relatively quick and effi cient means of meeting this need, and one recognized through federal funding by the US Department of Education for the National Heritage Language Resource Center (NHLRC). The Center’s mission is to develop effective pedagogical approaches to teaching HL learners, fi rst by creating a research base and then by pursuing curriculum design, materials development, and teacher education. Additional LP work for HLs has been funded through the National Security Language Initiative (NSLI), which seeks to expand and improve the teaching and learning of strategically important world languages, in particular through the STARTALK program (http://startalk.umd.edu/), which aims to increase the number of Americans learning, speaking, and teaching critical need foreign languages.

In addition to these federal LP efforts, a number of schools and programs at the K-12 and university level aim to provide language instruction for HLs. The bulk of these have been directed at Spanish HL learners (Valdés, Fishman, Chávez, & Pérez, 2006). Yet sub-stantial need remains. For example, most postsecondary institutions do not offer any HL courses (Gonzalez Pino & Pino, 2000), and while calls for teacher training for HL learners date back more than 30 years (Valdés, 1981), there are few programs or standards for training teachers to instruct Spanish to native speakers.

heritage languages and language policy 3

Looking Ahead

As suggested above, few programs are designed specifi cally for HL learners; most often they attend FL classes (Van Deusen-Scholl, 2003), especially at the tertiary level. More HL-specifi c materials, teacher training, assessment tools, and opportunities for community-based learning are urgently needed (Van Deusen-Scholl, 2003).

More generally, the fi eld of HLs is challenged by the heavy federal emphasis on a narrow handful of “critical languages,” that is those deemed to be critical to US national defense (e.g., Arabic, Pashtu, Korean). As noted above, these HLs have benefi ted from substantial support, while others (e.g., Hmong, Ojibwe, Somali) largely have been overlooked (King, 2009). As widely noted (e.g., Sandrock & Wang, 2005), this narrow prioritization of a handful of select languages is short-sighted given that the languages in need will no doubt change very quickly in step with world events; a better, long-range goal would be the active culti vation of a wider and deeper pool of Americans with second language skills of all sorts.

Even more broadly, perhaps the biggest challenges to all HLs in the USA are the general immigration politics and powerful English-only ideologies that undergird a rapid shift to English. For instance, SB1070, passed in the state of Arizona in April 2010, requires that immigration status be ascertained by local law enforcement when there is “reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.” While what might make a person “reasonably” suspect is not legislated, one might soundly infer that speaking Spanish (or another HL) would raise suspicion. Laws such as these not only hurt the individuals who live in fear of being jailed for speaking a HL, they weaken the entire nation by promoting the squandering of valuable linguistic resources.

Despite these and other unfavorable policies in the USA (e.g., the No Child Left Behind Act) and elsewhere, HL speakers and HL programs of some sort are likely to carry on. Indeed, as Hornberger (2005) notes, the “contested and ever-shifting” meaning of HL is “the surest evidence of the adaptability and long-term survival of heritage languages in our ever-changing world” (p. 608).

SEE ALSO: Bilingual Education and Immigration; Endangered Languages; Heritage and Community Languages; Heritage Language Teaching; Indigenous Languages in the 21st Century; Language Policy and Multilingualism; Literacy and Heritage Language Main-tenance; Minority Languages in Education; Teaching Indigenous Languages

References

Baker, C., & Jones, S. P. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Campbell, R., & Peyton, J. K. (1998). Heritage language students: A valuable language resource. The ERIC Review, 6(1), 38–9.

Carreira, M. (2004). Seeking explanatory adequacy: A dual approach to understanding the term “heritage language learner.” Heritage Language Journal, 2(1). Retrieved May 10, 2010 from www.heritagelanguages.org

Clyne, M. G. (1991). Community languages: The Australian experience. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, J. (1991). Introduction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 47(4), 601–5.De Bot, K., & Gorter, D. (2005). A European perspective on heritage languages. The Modern

Language Journal, 89(4), 612–16.Extra, G., & Gorter, D. (2001). The other languages of Europe. Clevedon, England: Multilingual

Matters.

4 heritage languages and language policy

Fishman, J. A. (2001). 300-plus years of heritage language education in the United States. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource, (pp. 81–98). Washington, DC & McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.

González Pino, B., & Pino, F. (2000). Serving the heritage speaker across a fi ve-year program. ADFL Bulletin, 32(1), 27–35.

Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Opening and fi lling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 605–9.

King, K. A. (2009). Language education policy for U.S. Spanish speakers: Paradoxes, pitfalls and promises. In J. Leeman & M. Lacorte (Eds.), Español en Estados Unidos y en otros contextos: Cuestiones sociolingüísticas, políticas y pedagógicas (pp. 303–23). Madrid, Spain: Iberoamericano.

Kondo-Brown, K. (2003). Heritage language instruction for post-secondary students from immigrant backgrounds. Heritage Language Journal, 1(1), 1–25. Retrieved January 31, 2010 from www.heritagelanguages.org

Sandrock, P., & Wang, S. C. (2005). Building an infrastructure to meet the language needs of all children. The State Education Standard. Journal of the National Association of State Boards of Education, 6(1), 24–31.

Valdés, G. (1981). Pedagogical implications of teaching Spanish to the Spanish-speaking in the United States. In G. Valdés, A. Lozano, & R. García-Moya (Eds.), La enseñanza del español a hispanohablantes: Praxis y teoría (pp. 8–44). Boston, MA: Houghton Miffl in.

Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profi les and possibilities. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 37–80). Washington, DC & McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.

Valdés, G., Fishman, J., Chávez, R., & Pérez, D. W. (2006). Developing minority language resources: The case of Spanish in California. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Van Deusen-Scholl, N. (1998). Heritage language instruction: Issues and challenges. AILA Newsletter, 1, 12–14.

Van Deusen-Scholl, N. (2003). Toward a defi nition of heritage language: Sociopolitical and pedagogical considerations. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2(3), 211–30.

Wharry, C. (1993). Bilingualism (ancestral language maintenance) among Native American, Vietnamese American, and Hispanic American college students. Bilingual Research Journal, 17(3/4), 117–33.

Wiley, T. G. (2001). On defi ning heritage languages and their speakers. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 29–36). Washington, DC & McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.

Wright, W. E. (2007). Heritage language programs in the era of English-Only and No Child Left Behind. Heritage Language Journal, 5(1), 1–26.

Suggested Readings

Brinton, D. M., Kagan, O., & Bauckus, S. (Eds.). (2008). Heritage language education: A new fi eld emerging. New York, NY: Routledge.

European Commission (Ed.). (2008). Languages of Europe: Regional and minority languages. Retrieved May 10, 2010 from ec.europa.eu/education/languages/languages-of-europe/doc139_en.htm

National Heritage Language Resource Center (NHLRC) (Ed.). (2008). Creation of language-specifi c materials. Retrieved May 10, 2010 from www.international.ucla.edu/languages/nhlrc/projects/article.asp?parentid=68139