Lang. Teach. (2018), 51.

4, 485–503 
c Cambridge University Press 2018
doi:10.1017/S0261444818000241

Research Timeline

Heritage language education: Development of the field in the

United States

Olga Kagan1 Formerly of UCLA Department of Slavic, East European and Eurasian
Languages and Cultures, California, USA

Kathleen Dillon Freelance scholar and writer

kedillon@ucdavis.edu

Introduction

Since at the turn of the twenty-first century heritage language (HL) research and education
was a new field emerging, this research timeline traces the complete history of the field
in the US through 2016.2 It highlights how theories and perspectives have changed, been
challenged, and widely accepted.3 The field’s roots are in Spanish since, as the language of the
most numerous immigration group, it has long been a commonly taught language in the US.
In the early 1990s, as numerous immigrant cultures became increasingly committed to
preserving their home language, enrollment in language classes at all educational levels began
to include significant numbers of ‘native’ speakers. However, it soon became clear that these
1.5 or second-generation speakers were not in fact native but were not typical language
learners either. Linguists from the three domains – theoretical, applied, and pedagogical –
have been exploring heritage learners’ language in an attempt to understand the peculiar
nature of their linguistic competence. While pedagogical researchers were examining the
traits of HL comprehension and production vis-à-vis traditional ‘foreign’ language students,
theoretical linguists explored linguistic differences between a typical heritage speaker and
the ‘native’ speaker. In educational settings assessment of HL competencies has become an
important field of investigation that is still in its infancy because of the difficulty of assessing
language competencies that have been acquired outside of the classroom.
A comparison of the immigration figures over three decades reveals how the HL field
emerged and expanded. Only one country sent more than one million émigrés to the US in

1 It is with great regret that Language Teaching learned of the recent passing of Dr Olga Kagan just as this issue was going

to press. The editor wishes to record his gratitude for the care and professionalism shown by both authors throughout the
writing of this paper at a very difficult time.
2 This timeline is limited to immigrant languages in the US and does not include indigenous languages.
3 With immigration increasingly widespread, bibliographies of research now include studies from many countries, and

the National HL Resource Center (NHLRC) (http://www.nhlrc.ucla.edu/nhlrc) has held two international heritage
conferences.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
 486 RESEARCH TIMELINE

1990. In 2000 there were four, and by 2010 there were eight. Each new immigration phase
poses new challenges for instruction and becomes the subject of new research. This research
timeline reveals the expansion of HLs being taught and researched, some of them among
the least commonly taught. The timeline also addresses the underlying question of language
policy and societal attitudes that were explored by sociolinguists as early as in the 1960s.
Theoretical linguists have identified two primary forces at work that produce the features
in HL that differ from the language produced by native speakers: incomplete or interrupted
acquisition and attrition. Seminal studies investigate the differential nature of HL bilingualism
and examine it in the context of age-effect in language acquisition and critical period theories.
Researchers also compare HL learners not only with native speakers but also with second
language (L2) learners. This timeline highlights how perspectives have evolved and shifted
over the past decade and a half.
Analysis of the distinctions between heritage learners and L2 learners is motivated by the
need for teaching both groups in institutional settings. The practice of teaching heritage and
foreign language learners simultaneously, though common at many educational institutions,
has proven problematic. Unlike foreign language learners, even heritage learners without
literacy typically come to the classroom with considerable oral and aural competencies.
Because their prior experience is not classroom and textbook based, HL learners require a
curriculum that differs from a typical curriculum for L2 learners.
As the timeline indicates, there are high-frequency traits in the HL that mark it clearly
as non-native. One of these features is code-switching, which provokes interesting debate
among researchers. Much attention is given to this phenomenon as evidence of incomplete
acquisition. On the other hand, a number of researchers find code-switching to be an
advantageous heritage speaker strategy that is not only justifiable but efficacious. There is
also evidence that code-switching can be considered a resource rather than a deficiency and a
manifestation of social identity. Pursuing a more positive assessment of HL, many researchers
began to replace the term ‘incomplete acquisition’ with ‘competence divergence.’
Attrition is a challenging aspect of language loss as it is hard to document at what point it
develops. Researchers look specifically at the aspects of language that are the most vulnerable
to attrition. They also examine the degree of attrition reversal in HL students as they proceed
through the educational system.
Two features that define heritage learners as individuals and collectively have inspired
widespread research across languages are motivation and identity. Although heritage and
L2 learners share some motivations for their pursuit of language proficiency, such as job
opportunities, one of the strongest motivators for heritage learners is a desire to be able to
speak to family in the US and family abroad and find out about their linguistic and cultural
roots. Closely linked to motivation is the issue of identity. Heritage speakers typically identify
with both their home culture and the dominant culture. The relationship between cultural
identity and language proficiency is complex and works in two opposite directions. On the
one hand, some identity studies establish a direct correlation between ethnic identity and
high-level competence in the HL. Other scholars find conflicting evidence that notes the role
of society’s negative stereotyping of a heritage student’s identity.
The works referenced in this timeline trace the progression of the field and form the
groundwork for future linguistic study as well as for pedagogical development. But, due to

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
 KAGAN & DILLON: HERITAGE LANGUAGE EDUCATION 487

space limitations, this timeline cannot include valuable input from many other sources,
including dissertations. Mileposts on the map of HL research history are clearly and
chronologically traced in a number of publications. The online Heritage Language Journal
(http://hlj.ucla.edu) is a free, comprehensive archive of articles across all areas of interest in
the field. The main findings of linguistic research up to 2013 were summed up in the White
Paper: Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics (2010/2013). The papers presented at the Heritage
Research Institutes (2007 to present) are posted online at http://www.nhlrc.ucla.edu/nhlrc.
In their chapter for the Encyclopedia of language and education Kagan & Dillon (2016) track the
major foci of HL research. Comprehensive bibliographies of HL research are provided by
Polinsky (2011) and Son (2015).
The key column in the timeline reference chart identifies major themes addressed in the
works cited, as follows:

As – Assessment
At – Attrition
C – Code-switching
CD – Competence divergence
D – Demographics
I – Identity
IA – Incomplete acquisition
M – Motivation
P – Policy
T – Teaching

References

Polinsky, M. (2011). Annotated bibliography of research in heritage languages. In Oxford bibliographies.

Oxford University Press.
Son, Y. A. (2015). Annotated bibliography: Overview of evaluation and assessment in heritage language learning.
Washington, DC: Assessment and Evaluation Language Resource Center.

OLGA KAGAN was a professor in the UCLA Department of Slavic, East European and Eurasian
Languages and Cultures and in charge of the Language Programs. She was director of the UCLA
Center for World Languages and the NHLRC (a Title VI Center). Her main research interest was the
teaching of HLs and she published textbooks of Russian both as a foreign language and as an HL. In
2015 she received the MLA Award for Distinguished Service to the Profession.
KATHLEEN DILLON is an independent scholar. From 2000 to 2010 she served as Associate Director of
the University of California Consortium for Language Learning & Teaching and from 2006 to 2010 as
Associate Director of the NHLRC. She received her doctoral degree in Comparative Literature from
the University of Southern California. She has taught Russian at the secondary and college levels and
was the 2000 recipient of the excellence in teaching award from the American Association of Teachers
of Russian and Eastern European Languages. With Olga Kagan, she was the founding editor of the
Heritage Language Journal and has published on teaching Russian as a heritage language.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
1966 Fishman, J. A. (1966). Language loyalty
in the United States: The maintenance and
perpetuation of non-English mother tongues
by American ethnic and religious groups.
The Hague: Mouton & Co.
1989 Valdés, G. (1989). Teaching Spanish
to Hispanic bilinguals: A look at oral
proficiency testing and the proficiency
movement. Hispania 72, 392–401.
1995 Polinsky, M. (1995). American
Russian: Language loss meets
language acquisition. Proceedings of the
Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to
Slavic Linguistics. The Cornell Meeting
1995. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic
Publications, 370–406.
1995 Valdés, G. (1995). The teaching of
minority languages as ‘foreign’
languages: Pedagogical and
theoretical challenges. Modern
Language Journal 79, 299–328.
1998 Campbell, R. & J. K. Peyton (1998).
Heritage language students: A
valuable language resource. The ERIC
Review: K-12 Foreign Language Education
1998.
488 RESEARCH TIMELINE
ANNOTATION THEME
Fishman’s work marks the first attempt to catalogue the non-English languages of DIP
the United States. Fishman examines language maintenance and shift as well as
cultures and identities of non-English dominant immigrants in America. This is a
pioneer study that underpins the development of HL research in the 1990s.
In this precursor to the designation ‘heritage language,’ Valdés examines teaching T As
Spanish to native speakers and testing their oral proficiency. She argues that oral
proficiency interviews (OPI) may not be appropriate for HL learners.
Polinsky lays the foundation for a proliferation of studies of attrition and A IA
incomplete acquisition. She describes American Russian as a ‘reduced language.’
In later work (2006) she determines that American Russian is a language in its own
right.
In another pioneer effort, Valdés identifies the future directions that the field of T As
applied linguistics must pursue to address the prevailing problem of teaching
native/bilingual speakers of Spanish simultaneously with foreign language learners.
This early document by Campbell & Peyton highlights the significance of D As P
demographic changes for the foreign language field in the US. The authors are
also early identifiers of needs and progress assessment tools for heritage learners.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
2000 Campbell, R. & J. W. Rosenthal
(2000). Heritage languages. In J.W.
Rosenthal (ed.), Handbook of
undergraduate second language education.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
165–184.
2000 Tse, L. (2000). The effects of ethnic
identity formation on bilingual
maintenance and development: An
analysis of Asian American
narratives. International Journal of
Bilingualism Education and Bilingualism
3.3, 185–200.
2000 UCLA Steering Committee (2000).
Heritage language research priorities
conference report. Bilingual Research
Journal 24.4, 475–488.
2000 Valdés, G. (2000). The teaching of
heritage languages: An introduction
for Slavic- teaching professionals. In
O. Kagan & B. Rifkin (eds.), The
learning and teaching of Slavic languages
and cultures. Bloomington, IN: Slavica,
375–403.
2001 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.), 81–99.
ANNOTATION THEME
∗
Pursuing the path carved out by VALDÉS (1995), Campbell & Rosenthal MPT
examine various factors, including motivation, that define the HL learner and that
distinguish this learner from the foreign language learner.
KAGAN & DILLON: HERITAGE LANGUAGE EDUCATION
Tse’s work is one of the first to focus on Asian languages as HLs. Tse’s study aims IMT
to determine the interface between Asian Americans’ attitudes toward their ethnic
identity and toward their HL. Tse also suggests implications for HL teaching
approaches.
This UCLA benchmark document records the status of the HL field in its infancy. I D As
It lays the foundation for ongoing work in the field, suggesting future research MTP
topics such as family, community, policies, programs, and assessment.
Valdés expands beyond her previous research that focused on heritage Spanish As T
and analyzes the needs in curricular development for less-commonly taught
languages, Slavic languages in particular.
Fishman expands the horizon of his earlier foundational work. The far-reaching DIP
scope of his history of languages in the United States includes examination of the
government formulation of language policy and the role of religious institutions
and HL schools.
489
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
2001 Kagan, O. & K. Dillon (2001). A new
perspective on teaching Russian:
Focus on the heritage learner. The
Slavic and East European Journal 45.3,
507–518.
Republished in 2003 by the Heritage
Language Journal 1.1, 76–90.
2001 Kondo-Brown, K. (2001). Bilingual
heritage students’ language contact
and motivation. In Z. Dörnyei & R.
Schmidt (eds.), Motivation and second
language acquisition (Technical Report
#23, 433–459). Honolulu: University
of Hawai’i, Second Language
Teaching and Curriculum Center.
2001 Peyton, J. K., D. A. Ranard & S.
McGinnis (2001). Heritage languages in
America: Preserving a national resource.
Language in education: Theory and practice.
McHenry, IL: Delta Systems
Company Inc., 81–99.
2001 Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language
students: Profiles and possibilities. In
J. K. Peyton, D. Ranard &
S. McGinnis (eds.), 37–77.
2001 Wiley, T. G. (2001). On defining
heritage languages and their speakers.
In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard &
S. McGinnis (eds.), 29–36.
490 RESEARCH TIMELINE
ANNOTATION THEME
Kagan & Dillon are the first to publish an examination of the vocabulary T
lacunae of Russian heritage students and offer a preliminary proposal for a
heritage learner specific curriculum.
Kondo-Brown is one of the first to unveil the range of similarities and differences ITM
in motivation among 145 beginning to advanced level Japanese heritage students.
The study is particularly interested in the frequency and effect of social language
contact.
Peyton, Ranard & McGinnis pursue the themes in CAMPBELL & PEYTON As T
(1998) and envision the kinds of programs that will produce high-level HL P
proficiency. They conclude that new materials, teaching strategies, and assessment
tools are the most essential needs.
Valdés continues her study of the challenges involved in formulating instruction ITP
that ‘capitalizes on personal connections to the HL’ and creates a portrait of the
‘mythical’ bilingual.
Wiley produces landmark work addressing the interface between the academic IDP
role in preserving HLs and the role of the myriad language communities. This
early study provides a foundational examination of three perspectives that
comprise the core of the article: program, community, and sociolinguistic situation.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

YEAR REFERENCE ANNOTATION THEME

2002 Brecht, R. & C. Ingold (2002). Tapping
a national resource: Heritage languages in
the United States. ERIC Digest
EDO-FL-02-02. Washington, DC:
Center for Applied
Brecht & Ingold identify a broad range of issues facing the newly emerging P
heritage field of language education and, following the earlier ideas of FISHMAN
(1966), argue for a national policy that will take advantage of the linguistic skills of
the HL population.

KAGAN & DILLON: HERITAGE LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Linguistics/ERIC. Retrieved
September 18, 2010 from
http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED464515.pdf.
2003 Campbell, R. & D. Christian (2003). The introduction by Campbell & Christian defines the most important TPIM
Directions in research: research directions for the development of the field. It is followed by short
Intergenerational transmission of contributions from ten authors.
heritage languages. Heritage Language
Journal 1.1, 1–44.
2003 Carreira, M. (2003). Profiles of SNS Expanding the reach of VALDÉS (2000, 2001), Carreira highlights the influence of IA D T
students in the twenty-first century: Spanish-language media on the characteristics of spoken Spanish in the US
Pedagogical implications of the Hispanic populations. Other key topics include education, diversity in the Hispanic
changing demographics and social population and suggestions for new pedagogical approaches and materials.
status of US. Hispanics. In A. Roca &
M. C. Colombi (eds.), Mi Lengua:
Spanish as a heritage language in the United
States. Washington DC: Georgetown
University Press, 51–77.
(SNS: Spanish for native speakers)
2003 Kagan, O. & D. Friedman (2003). In a study based on recorded OPI-like tests, Kagan & Friedman are the first in As T
Using the OPI to place heritage the field to examine the possibility of using American Council on the Teaching of
speakers of Russian. Foreign Language Foreign Languages (ACTFL) OPI proficiency interviews to assess and place
Annals 36.4, 536–545. heritage speakers of Russian. They respond to VALDÉS’s (1989) claim that OPIs
cannot be used with HL speakers.

491
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
2003 Lynch, A. (2003a). Toward a theory
of heritage language acquisition. In
A. Roca & M. C. Colombi (eds.), Mi
Lengua: Spanish as a Heritage Language in
the United States. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press, 25–50.
2003 Lynch, A. (2003b). The relationship
between second and heritage
language acquisition: Notes on
research and theory building. Heritage
Language Journal 1.1, 26–43.
2003 Potowski, K. (2003). Chicago’s
‘Heritage Language Teacher Corps’:
A model for improving Spanish
teacher development. Hispania 86.2,
302–311.
2003 Roca, A. & M. C. Colombi (eds.)
(2003). Mi Lengua: Spanish as a heritage
language in the United States.
Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
2003 Van Deusen-Scholl, N. (2003).
Toward a definition of Heritage
Language: Sociopolitical and
pedagogical considerations. Journal of
Language, Identity, and Education 2,
211–230.
492 RESEARCH TIMELINE
ANNOTATION THEME
VALDÉS (2000, 2001) drew attention to the lack of a theoretical base for the T
heritage field. Lynch develops nine principles to underpin the future formulation
of a theory for research on Spanish as an HL. Lynch argues that comparing HL
learners to monolinguals is ‘as linguistically incorrect as it is socially unjust’ (p. 37).
Lynch pursues the need for theory and traces the course of acquisition of English At T
and the attrition of the HL from childhood though adolescence to adulthood.
Potowski develops one of the earliest secondary-level teacher-training efforts that T
aimed to equip a core group of teachers with special competencies to teach
Spanish for Native Speakers (the original term) rather than merge heritage
students in foreign language classes.
Informed by the work of VALDÉS (2000, 2001), WILEY (2001), and other IMT
predecessors, this comprehensive volume consists of two parts: addressing P IA
theoretical considerations, and community- and classroom-based research studies –
implications for instruction K-16.
Van Deusen-Scholl records the evolution of the term ‘heritage’ and discusses the MT
history of reservations about the term. Van Deusen-Scholl introduced an
alternative descriptor ‘learners with a heritage motivation.’
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
2004 Carreira, M. (2004). Seeking
explanatory adequacy: A dual
approach to understanding the term
‘Heritage Language Learner.’ Heritage
Language Journal 2.1, 1–25.
2004 He, A. W. (2004). Identity
construction in Chinese Heritage
language classes. Pragmatics 14.2/3,
199–216.
2004 Kagan, O. & K. Dillon (2004).
Heritage speakers’ potential for
high-level language proficiency. In H.
Byrnes & H. Maxim (eds.), Advanced
foreign language learning: A challenge to
college programs. AAUSC Issues in
Language Program Direction,
99–112.
2004 Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and
Object expression in Spanish heritage
speakers: A case of morphosyntactic
convergence. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition 7.2, 143–145.
2004 Sorace, A. (2004). Native language
attrition and developmental
instability at the syntax-discourse
interface: data, interpretations and
methods. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition 7.2, 125–142.
ANNOTATION THEME
Like WILEY (2001), Carreira is one of the first researchers to emphasize the role DIT
of the ethnic community and the learner’s identity in the development of HL
curriculum.
In this anthropologically-based study He complements CARREIRA’s (2003) work I
KAGAN & DILLON: HERITAGE LANGUAGE EDUCATION
and examines the concept of identity as a process of becoming rather than a static
set of attributes. From a Language Socialization perspective, He explains how
language, particularly through dialogic INTERACTIONAL PRODUCTION, relates
directly to identity. This is one of the first studies of identity as a fluid concept.
Kagan & Dillon continue to develop new approaches to teaching Russian as an T
HL and propose a matrix for a program designed to advance heritage students to
high-level proficiency. The matrix is applicable to HLs in general.
Montrul is one of the key researchers who delve into the factors that distinguish At IA
attrition from incomplete acquisition. In this paper, based on an oral production
task administered to heritage and monolingual speakers, she identifies which
elements of language are vulnerable to erosion.
Sorace responds to some of POLINSKY’s (1995) assertions about grammar attrition At IA
in second-generation heritage speakers. She underscores the importance of
knowing what the speakers’ baseline knowledge was before examining attrition,
since many heritage speakers are ‘incomplete learners.’
493
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
2005 Beaudrie, S. & C. Ducar (2005).
Beginning level university Heritage
programs: Creating a space for all
Heritage language learners. Heritage
Language Journal 3.1, 1–26.
2005 Hornberger, N. H. (ed.) (2005).
Continua of biliteracy: An ecological
framework for educational policy,
research, and practice in multilingual
settings, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Also International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 8.2/3.
2005 Kagan, O. (2005). In support of a
proficiency-based definition of
heritage language learners: The case
of Russian. International Journal of
Bilingual Education 8.2/3, 213–221.
2005 Kondo-Brown, K. (2005). Differences
in language skills: Heritage language
learner subgroups and foreign
language learners. Modern Language
Journal 89.4, 563–581.
2005 Shin, S. J. (2005). Developing in two
languages: Korean children in America.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
494 RESEARCH TIMELINE
ANNOTATION THEME
Related to the examinations of the role of attitude and motivation of heritage PTM
learners by researchers such as CARREIRA (2004) and WILEY (2001), Beaudrie &
Ducar conduct a survey of students in a beginning level Spanish heritage class.
They examine the students’ attitudes and motivations and present pedagogical
implications. This paper follows POTOWSKI (2003) and lays a foundation for further
research of heritage language programs, for example, CARREIRA (2014).
This special issue of the journal focuses on language in the community and the P
significance of cultural identity. Hornberger summons some of the formative
work in sociolinguistics by FISHMAN (1966) among others and argues convincingly
for an ecological approach to multilingual policies, that is, policies founded on
awareness of the ethnic and linguistic pluralism not only in the US but worldwide.
Kagan continues her focus on heritage proficiency and details the factors involved As I
in placing heritage students in a college language program. She asserts that the
foundation of HL acquisition is a triad: the family; the community/community
schools; and formal education, each having varying degrees of influence depending
on students’ background and experiences.
Kondo-Brown examines proficiency tests and includes self-assessments to As I M
determine if the language behaviors of heritage learners of Japanese differed from
those of foreign language students of Japanese. This study is distinctive in that the
author sorts the heritage learner subjects into two separate groups: students with at
least one Japanese-speaking parent, and students with at least one
Japanese-speaking grandparent, but no Japanese-speaking parent.
Shin takes a different tack from HE (2004) in identity-focused heritage research I IA T
and spotlights the identity crises that result from the mainly English-only education P
system in the US. She delves into the stigmatization of minority-language children,
the failure of bilingual programs, the impact on family relationships, and the
challenges for the teachers.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
2006 He, A. W. (2006). Toward an identity
theory of the development of Chinese
as a heritage language. Heritage
Language Journal 4.1, 1–28.
2006 Lee, J. S. & E. Oxelson (2006). It’s not
my job: K-12 teacher attitudes toward
students’ HL maintenance. Bilingual
Research Journal 30.2, 453–477.
2006 Montrul, S. (2006). Incomplete
acquisition as a feature of L2 and
bilingual grammars. In R. Slabakova,
S. Montrul & P. Prévost (eds.), Inquiries
in language development. Studies in Honor
of Lydia White. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 335–359.
2006 Polinsky, M. (2006). Incomplete
acquisition: American Russian.
Journal of Slavic Linguistics 14, 161–219.
2006 Weger-Guntharp, H. (2006). Voices
from the margin: Developing a profile
of Chinese heritage language learners
in the FL classroom. Heritage Language
Journal 4.1, 29–46.
ANNOTATION THEME
He postulates that Chinese heritage learners have certain ambiguities and I
complications that differentiate them from foreign language learners. The author
takes a further step beyond her study of 2004. Her primary concern here is
advocacy for HL instruction that fosters identity formation.
Lee & Oxelson are among the first to underscore the effect of teachers’ attitudes T
on heritage learners. Through surveys and interviews with California teachers,
KAGAN & DILLON: HERITAGE LANGUAGE EDUCATION
they find significant differences in teacher practices and attitudes toward the role of
schools in HL maintenance depending on whether teachers had fluency in a
language other than English or have been exposed to the issues facing HL learners.
The authors argue that HL maintenance needs to become a ‘societal process’ so
that minority-language children will be raised and educated to achieve ‘complete
identities.’ This is still the only study of its kind.
Along with POLINSKY (1995, 2006) Montrul is a leader in studying the notion of IA
incomplete acquisition in L2 and heritage learning. In this article she proposes
that, contrary to conventional thinking, an early start at language acquisition does
not necessarily equate with advantages beyond phonology.
Polinsky’s subjects for this study are young adults for whom English has IA
supplanted Russian to become their primary language. Polinsky compares features
of Modern Russian with American Russian (as exemplified by these research
subjects) and draws an innovative conclusion that American Russian is a language
in its own right.
Weger-Guntharp aims to expand what she believes is a prevailing restrictive IT
definition of heritage learners as those whose home language is the HL. In this
analysis of her research on a diverse group of heritage learners, she probes the
effect on students’ identity to be a learner of their familial language that is not
necessarily the language of the home. Issues include learner confidence and
risk-taking, and instructor perceptions and expectations.
495
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
2007 Polinsky, M. & O. Kagan (2007).
Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and
in the classroom. Languages and
Linguistics Compass 1.5, 368–295.
2008 Au, T. K-F. (2008). Salvaging heritage
languages. In D. Brinton, O. Kagan
& S. Bauckus (eds.), Heritage language
education: A new field emerging. New
York: Routledge, 337–352.
2008 Brinton, D., O. Kagan & S. Bauckus
(eds.). (2008). Heritage language
education: A new field emerging. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2008 He, H He, A. W. & Y. Xaio (eds)
(2008). Chinese as a heritage language:
Fostering rooted world citizenry. Honolulu,
University of Hawai’i, National
Foreign Language Resource Center.
2008 Hornberger, N. H. & S. C. Wang
(2008). Who are our heritage
language learners? Identity and
biliteracy in heritage language
education in the United States. In D.
M. Brinton, O. Kagan & S. Bauckus
(eds.), 3–38.
496 RESEARCH TIMELINE
ANNOTATION THEME
Returning to the earliest issue in the HL field, Polinsky & Kagan propose two IA I T
new definitions of heritage speakers: a broad definition that is mostly cultural
awareness and a narrow definition for individuals who have some proficiency in
the language. They also explain how the baseline for HL speakers who were
exposed to the language only at home differs from that of the conventional
standard language of full-competency speakers.
Au introduces the concept of overhearing and discusses childhood language IA
experiences that may or may not help adults learn or re-learn their HL. Au
describes a study of Korean adoptees in France who as young adults could not
distinguish Korean from other languages. She attributes this phenomenon at least
partially to the distinction between storage strength and retrieval strength of
long-ago memories.
Brinton, Kagan & Bauckus gather some of the prominent researchers in the PTDI
HL field to present a broad spectrum of topics in theory and pedagogy. Topics M As
covered include: government and academic institution policy; HL students in the
schools and at post-secondary levels; teacher preparation; recommendations for
research.
In this compendium of 32 authors, He & Xiao examine Chinese as an HL from IMT
sociocultural, cognitive-linguistic, and educational/institutional perspectives.
Sections in the volume are dedicated to understanding the learner, learner
language, and HL pedagogy.
Hornberger & Wang pursue the work of HORNBERGER (2005) and propose an IP
ecological model for HL education. They advocate for participatory pedagogy in
which learners chart their own paths in learning.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
2008 Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete
acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining
the age factor. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
2008 Polinsky, M. (2008). Gender under
incomplete acquisition: Heritage
speakers’ knowledge of noun
categorization. Heritage Language
Journal 6.1, 40–71.
2008 Wiley, T. G. (2008). Dialect speakers
as heritage language learners: A
Chinese case study. In D. Brinton, O.
Kagan & S. Bauckus (eds.), 91–106.
2009 Brown, C. L. (2009). Heritage
language and ethnic identity: A case
study of Korean-American college
students. International Journal of
Multicultural Education 11.1, 1–16.
2009 Kagan, O. & K. Dillon (2009). The
professional development of teachers
of heritage language learners: A
matrix. In M. Andersen & A.
Lazarton (eds.), Bridging contexts, making
connections. Minneapolis: Center for
Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition, University of Minnesota,
155–175.
ANNOTATION THEME
Montrul continues her study of incomplete acquisition and examines the age IA I
factor in non-native attainment of languages in early bilinguals. She compares
adult language acquisition of L2 learners with HL learners and identifies factors
that lead to different linguistic outcomes in each group.
Polinsky presents data on a single grammatical item in Russian which IA
KAGAN & DILLON: HERITAGE LANGUAGE EDUCATION
demonstrate that American heritage speakers of Russian reanalyze the gender
system in ways significantly different from the baseline, particularly because
heritage speakers do not typically have mastery of the Russian declensional system.
Polinsky proposes future research to compare heritage Russian with a dominant
two- or three-gender language.
In a new direction toward a definition of a heritage learner, Wiley parses a TIM
fundamental question ‘Who can be considered a legitimate HL learner?’ While this
case study examines Chinese, it is relevant for most HLs in educational settings.
Continuing the field’s interest in identity, Brown’s small study is significant in that
the subjects are all highly proficient speakers of their HL. Further, the study
highlights how language proficiency positively affected the students’ Korean
identity and their self-identity in general.
Continuing their pursuit of an ideal model for teaching heritage learners, Kagan TMI
& Dillon propose a teacher-training matrix that emphasizes the assets of heritage
students. It includes: understanding students’ motivations, connections with their
heritage communities, attitudes toward their HL, and ‘real life goals.’
497
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
2009 Pires, A. & J. Rothman (2009).
Disentangling sources of incomplete
acquisition: An explanation for
competence divergence across
heritage grammars. International
Journal of Bilingualism 13.2, 211–239.
2010 He, A. W. (2010). The heart of
heritage: Sociocultural dimensions of
heritage language learning. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 30, 66–82.
2010 Kondo-Brown, K. (2010).
Curriculum development for
advancing heritage language
competence: Recent research, current
practices and a future agenda. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 30, 24–41.
2010 Shin, S-Y. (2010). The functions of
code-switching in a Korean Sunday
school. Heritage Language Journal 7.1,
91–116.
2010 Wong, K. F. & Y. Xiao (2010).
Diversity and difference: Identity
issues of Chinese heritage language
learners from dialect backgrounds.
Heritage Language Journal 7.2, 314–348.
498 RESEARCH TIMELINE
ANNOTATION THEME
Pires & Rothman compare HL speakers of European Portuguese and Brazilian IA CD
Portuguese in the US with the goal of identifying the factors that lead to the
differences in their HL acquisition. The authors propose ‘competence divergence’
as an alternative term to ‘incomplete acquisition’.
Continuing some of the themes of her work of 2008, He approaches HLs as a I
complex sociolinguistic phenomenon that identifies and transforms sociocultural
groups. He identifies implications and consequences of these complexities for both
research and practice.
Related to the work of KAGAN & DILLON (2001, 2004), Kondo-Brown suggests T
ways to expand curriculum research and practices with the goal of advancing the
language competencies of HL learners.
Shin counters the earlier view of code-switching as a deficiency in bilingual C
speakers and unveils its positive and identity-related functions. Shin’s examination
of the occasions when code-switching is prevalent in the Sunday school
environment includes a substantial review of research on code-switching. Emphasis
is on the role of Korean social hierarchy.
Building on the work on identity by CARREIRA (2004) and others, Wong & Xiao MI
delve into the motivation of HL speakers of Taiwanese to study Mandarin, an HL
that is not their mother tongue.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
2010 Wright, W. (2010). Khmer as a
heritage language in the United
States: Historical sketch, current
realities, and future prospects. Heritage
Language Journal 7.1, 117–147.
2011 Carreira, M. & O. Kagan (2011). The
results of the National Heritage
Language Survey: Implications for
teaching, curriculum design, and
professional development. Foreign
Language Annals 44.1, 40–64.
2011 Polinsky, M. (2011). Reanalysis in
adult heritage language. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 33.2,
305–328.
2012 Beaudrie, S. & M. Fairclough (2012).
Spanish as a heritage language in the United
States. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
ANNOTATION THEME
Furthering his work on language policy, Wright advocates for the preservation of PT
the Khmer language in the US. He traces the history of Cambodian immigration,
probes the complexities of the relationship between American Cambodians and
Cambodia, and examines the scant existing programs and materials for learning
KAGAN & DILLON: HERITAGE LANGUAGE EDUCATION
Khmer as an HL. This paper’s importance lies in its exploration of a language that
is one of the least commonly taught languages in the US.
In contrast with the language-specific papers on heritage learners’ identity, IMT
Carreira & Kagan surveyed almost 1,800 learners of 22 HLs. The self-reported As
survey focuses on participants’ sense of identity and motivations for preserving their
HLs. The authors offer curricular suggestions based on their analysis of the survey.
Polinsky emphasizes the fact that a theoretical basis of acquisition models At
remains in the developmental stage. Nonetheless, her mapping of the patterns in
child and adult HL enables her to formulate predictions and draw data-supported
conclusions about how attrition occurs over time in heritage speakers. Her
fundamental question is ‘do heritage speakers fail to learn certain structures or do
these structures get acquired and then undergo subsequent degradation due to lack
of use or transfer from the dominant language?’ (p. 306). As with SORACE (2004),
Polinsky’s revelations concerning the divergent grammars between child and
heritage speakers of Russian will be of interest to all researchers of incomplete
acquisition and attrition in any language.
Beaudrie & Fairclough assemble a broad selection of topics addressing T
linguistic and pedagogical perspectives on HL from some of the leading
researchers in the heritage field. It is an excellent reference resource for
researchers, instructors, and graduate students.
499
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
2012 Cabo, D. P. Y. & J. Rothman (2012).
The (il)logical problem of heritage
speaker bilingualism and incomplete
acquisition. Applied Linguistics 33.4,
450–455.
2012 Ducar, C. (2012). SHL learners
attitudes and motivations:
Reconciling opposing forces. In S.
Beaudrie & M. Fairclough
(eds.), 253–282.
(SHL: Spanish as a heritage language)
2012 Ilieva, G. Nik (2012). Hindi HL
learners’ performance during OPIs:
Characteristics and pedagogical
implications. Heritage Language Journal
9.2, 156–174.
2013 Benmamoun E., S. Montrul & M.
Polinsky (2013). Heritage languages
and their speakers: Opportunities and
challenges for linguistics. Theoretical
Linguistics 39.3–4, 129–181.
(This is an expanded text of
Benmamoun, Montrul & Polinsky
(2010). White Paper: Prolegomena to
Heritage Linguistics. Retrieved from
http://nhlrc.ucla.edu/pdf/
HL-whitepaper.pdf.)
500 RESEARCH TIMELINE
ANNOTATION THEME
Cabo & Rothman expand the PIRES & ROTHMAN (2009) argument that CD
‘competence divergence’ is a more accurate term than ‘incomplete acquisition’ to
describe the distinct traits of HL.
While acknowledging the value of KONDO-BROWN’s (2001) analyses of heritage MI
students at different levels of instruction, Ducar emphasizes the need for
longitudinal data gathering that would track any evolution in heritage learners’
attitude and motivations. Ducar explicates the significant differences between
attitudes and motivations in Spanish HL learners and L2 learners. This chapter
also includes an interesting examination of language anxiety and insecurity in the
HL learner.
Ilieva responds to VALDÉS (1989) and continues the line of research initiated by As
KAGAN & FRIEDMAN (2003). She examines the results of the OPI conducted during
a Hindi teacher workshop. The only study of its kind in Hindi, (and one of the very
few in less-commonly taught languages) it reveals the differences between the
proficiencies of heritage and non-heritage learners even when they receive the
same ACTFL OPI rating.
This is a foundational work by Benmamoun, Montrul & Polinsky. They delve IA
into the significance of HL studies for the field of linguistic research. They examine
various grammatical features and explain how the knowledge derived from this
research contributes to the broader discussion of ‘how language works’ and ‘how it
is acquired under different conditions.’
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
2013 Davidson, D. E. & M. D. Lekic (2013).
The heritage and non-heritage
learner in the overseas immersion
context: Comparing learning
outcomes and target-language
utilization in the Russian flagship.
Heritage Language Journal 10.2, 88–114.
2013 Martin, C., E. Swender & M.
Rivera-Martinez (2013). Assessing the
oral proficiency of heritage speakers
according to the ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines 2012 – Speaking. Heritage
Language Journal 10.2, 211–225.
2013 Montrul, S. (2013). How ‘native’ are
heritage speakers? Heritage Language
Journal 10.2, 153–176.
2014 Beaudrie, S., C. Ducar & K. Potowski
(2014) Heritage language teaching:
Research and practice. Columbus, OH:
McGraw-Hill Education.
ANNOTATION THEME
Little research has been done on the effects of overseas study by heritage learners. As
Reporting on a year-long immersion program in Russia, Davidson & Lekic
discuss their findings that indicate that heritage participants frequently improved
from level 2 to level 4 on the ILR (Interagency Language Roundtable) scale,
whereas non-heritage students typically improved from 2 to 3.
KAGAN & DILLON: HERITAGE LANGUAGE EDUCATION
The study described in the report is the first study at this scale analyzing OPI As T
results of HL speakers of two different languages. This is a continuation of the
study by KAGAN & FRIEDMAN (2003). In this report on the findings of a joint
NHLRC/ ACTFL project conducted in 2010/11. Martin, Swender &
Rivera-Martinez analyze features of heritage speakers of Russian and Spanish to
identify what deficits prevented these speakers from attaining higher ratings on the
ACTFL OPI. The detailed analysis of the ratings at each level on the OPI scale is a
rich source of information to infuse future pedagogical developments.
Instead of taking the traditional but now challenged ‘deficit view’ of heritage IA At
speakers focusing on incomplete acquisition and attrition, Montrul inspects the As
native-like features of the heritage speaker and asserts that heritage speakers are, in
fact, native speakers because they have higher levels of accuracy with
morphosyntactic and lexical aspects of language that are very difficult for foreign
language learners to master. Montrul further explores identifying heritage speakers
as native speakers in depth in MONTRUL (2016).
Building on all the available research, Beaudrie, Ducar & Potowski provide a T
roadmap for secondary and post-secondary teachers who are faced with the
challenge of teaching HL learners. The guide includes methods for teaching
grammar, vocabulary and pragmatics. It also includes a valuable summary of the
research that forms a foundation for educational practice.
501
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
2014 Carreira, M. (2014). Teaching
heritage language learners: A study of
program profiles, practices, and
needs. In P. Trifonas & T. Aravossitas
(eds.), Rethinking heritage language
education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 20–44.
2014 Helmer, K. A. (2014). ‘It’s not real, it’s
just a story to just learn Spanish’:
Understanding heritage learner
resistance in a Southwest Charter
High school. Heritage Language Journal
11.3, 186–205.
2014 Kagan, O. (2014). Russian heritage
language learners: From students’
profiles to project-based curriculum.
In T. Wiley, J. K. Peyton, D.
Christian, S. Moore & N. Liu (eds.),
Handbook of heritage, community, and
Native American languages in the United
States: Research, policy, and educational
practice. New York/Washington, DC:
Routledge and Center for Applied
Linguistics, 177–185.
2014 Malone, M. E., J. K. Peyton & K.
Kim (2014). Assessment of heritage
language learners: Issues and
directions. In T. Wiley et al. (eds.),
349–358.
502 RESEARCH TIMELINE
ANNOTATION THEME
Drawing on research by BEAUDRIE & FAIRCLOUGH (2012), BRECHT & INGOLD P
(2002), much of the work of VALDÉS, and others, Carreira examines over 300
programs for HL learners in higher education. She discovers that while many
colleges offer such programs, they frequently depend on the efforts of a single
instructor and do not have administrative support. She asserts that HL programs
can only be sustainable if they are institutionalized.
This timeline would not be complete without including the ethnographic aspect of PT
HL learning. Helmer’s compelling article unveils the shortcomings of high school
Spanish HL courses. Student resistance reached the extreme of ‘strike-like’
behavior among students who experienced alienation and denigration in their
classes. Helmer focuses particularly on how ‘the use of inauthentic FL materials had
the effect of discrediting HL learners’ cultural and linguistic knowledge (p. 190).
Continuing the line of exploration of the suitability of a top-down and IMT
sociolinguistic approach to teaching HL learners by BEAUDRIE, DUCAR &
POTOWSKI (2014) and HELMER (2014), Kagan provides an in-depth examination
not only of Russian heritage learners but of the entire concept of heritage learner.
Kagan advocates for project-based instruction that benefits not only the students’
language acquisition but also their connection with their families and heritage
culture.
Malone, Peyton & Kim continue the work of FISHMAN (2001) and BRECHT & As I M
INGOLD (2002) on the issue of assessing the proficiency of heritage learners. They
address ‘context’ or types of language contact and the limitations of
self-assessment. They conclude that for both broad and narrow definition heritage
learners (POLINSKY & KAGAN 2007) the extent of social contact directly correlates
with levels of proficiency. Other key factors are identity and motivation.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. CONRICyT, on 07 Sep 2019 at 14:35:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
YEAR REFERENCE
2014 Schwartz Caballero, A. M. (2014).
Preparing teachers to work with
heritage language learners. In T.
Wiley et al. (eds.) 359–369.
2015 Polinsky, M. (2015). Heritage
languages and their speakers: State of
the field, challenges, perspectives for
future work, and methodologies.
Zeitschrift für
Fremdsprachenforschung 26.1, 7–27.
2016 Fairclough, M. & S. Beaudrie (eds.)
(2016). Innovative strategies for heritage
language teaching: A practical guide for the
classroom. Washington DC:
Georgetown University Press.
2016 Kagan, O. & K. Dillon (2016). Issues
in heritage language learning in the
United States. In N. Van
Deusen-Scholl & N. H. Hornberger
(eds.), Encyclopedia of language and
education, 2nd edn, vol. 4. New York:
Springer Science+Business Media,
143–156.
2016 Montrul, S. (2016). The acquisition of
heritage languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
∗
Authors’ names are shown in small capitals when the study referred to appears in this timeline.
ANNOTATION THEME
Schwartz Caballero reviews existing materials and approaches for HL teaching T
and concludes that while these resources are multiple, teachers may not have
access to them because of insufficient preparation.
Polinsky revisits the definition of the HL speaker and establishes the baseline for As T
an HL as primarily the language spoken in the home rather than a standard dialect
KAGAN & DILLON: HERITAGE LANGUAGE EDUCATION
or language taught in the classroom. Referring to the ‘continuum model’ in
POLINSKY & KAGAN (2007) Polinsky argues that although there are numerous levels
of proficiency in any HL classroom, there are ‘common patterns . . . that unite
heritage speakers as a single category within bilinguals’ (p. 10). Hence, there is a
pressing need for a massive database that tracks the progress of heritage re-learners
at intervals during a course. She points out that for instructors interested in
participating in this effort, some tools are posted on the NHLRC website.
Building on all the research done in the field since its inception, Fairclough & T
Beaudrie present innovations in teaching practice based on state-of-the-art
research. The contributors provide practical tools for teaching informed by
linguistic, sociolinguistic, and educational research on HL learners.
Kagan & Dillon trace the history of HL education, highlighting the works they TPI
consider to be the major contributions to the field. They review various novel M As D
approaches to teaching heritage learners and discuss the evolution of US language
education policy. Problems and difficulties entailed in establishing programs for
heritage learners are highlighted as are suggestions for future directions.
Montrul continues her 2013 examination of similarities and differences between IA At
heritage speakers and native speakers, and heritage speakers and L2 learners. This CD
comprehensive volume addresses the key issues and developments in the field and TP
also discusses their implications for pedagogy and policy.
503