Search

This article discusses ideas that will likely figure prominently in the development of the field of heritage language (HL) studies over the next five decades. Drawing on the ideals that prompted the launch of the Heritage Language Initiative 20 years ago and building on the accomplishments of the field since then, we make several proposals for advancing research and instruction to better serve the needs of HL-speaking youth and communities, as well as the nation at large. With this overarching goal, we focus in particular on the ways to institutionalize HL education in foreign language departments and mainstream it in the larger U.S. educational system

This article explores the linguistic profiles of heritage speakers of Russian and Spanish. Data from the 2009-2013 ACTFL-UCLA NHLRC Heritage Language Project included biographical information as well as speech samples that were elicited using the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview-computer and were rated according to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012-Speaking by certified testers. The goal of the study was to better understand the multiple linguistic, educational, and experiential factors that contributed to the speaking proficiency of these heritage speakers as well as how those features affected the tasks and contexts in which the speakers could more appropriately communicate in the language. The data illuminate the linguistic strengths and weaknesses of speakers within certain ranges and highlight those language features that prevented the participants from being rated at the next higher level. The authors discuss implications for teaching and learning and make recommendations for both heritage speakers and their instructors.Key words: implementation and assessment, interpersonal and presentational speak- ing, oral proficiency, program design, program monitoring and assessmentIntroductionAmple anecdotal information exists about the oral proficiency profiles of heritage lan- guage learners (HLLs), and it is sometimes assumed that HLLs are capable of accom- plishing a full range of linguistic tasks because of their authentic-sounding lan- guage and apparent ease of communication. However, such assumptions are not sup- ported by the broad spectrum in actual pro- ficiency levels among HLLs-a range that includes those who understand but do not speak the language, those who can effective- ly carry out an assortment of basic daily tasks, and those who can use the language accurately and appropriately across a range of sophisticated professional and personal tasks and contexts. Given the complexities associated with teaching and evaluating HLLs, this study was carried out by the ACTFL in conjunction with the National Heritage Language Resource Center (NHLRC) at the University of California- Los Angeles (UCLA) to gather reliable data about the range and variety of profiles of HLLs' oral proficiency.Review of LiteratureAssessing the proficiency of HLLs is a par- ticularly challenging task, and within the existing literature, a number of assessment measures have been considered. Fairclough, Belpoliti, and Bermejo (2010) reported that a large number of American universities continue to use second language (L2) assess- ments as placement exams for incoming students in Spanish heritage language pro- grams. In addition, while self-assessment may not provide the most robust measure by itself, many heritage language programs use self-assessment or self-assessment in combination with oral interviews as a means of placing students or as a method of pre- liminary screening for separating HLLs from L2 students. Carreira and Kagan (2011), e.g., reported that of the 1,732 HLLs of 22 languages in their study, almost 68% felt that they were advanced or close to native speak- ers in listening comprehension and 44% felt they were advanced or native-like in speak- ing; in comparison, a much smaller number (27 and 19%, respectively) answered that their reading and writing proficiencies were advanced or native-like (pp. 40-64).Shortly after the development of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) protocol and rating system, Valdes (1989) suggested that using the OPI to assess HLLs may not be appropriate because the test was originally designed to assess L2 learners who started learning the language from zero. Valdes also argued that OPI testers may unfairly penalize speakers of nonstandard or stigmatized language varieties, as did Draper and Hicks (2000), who stated that the use of the OPI for Spanish HLLs "has the potentialtoleadtothedenigrationofa rating based on the variety of the language spoken" (p. …

This article reports on a survey of heritage language learners (HLLs) across different heritage languages (HLs) and geographic regions in the United States. A general profile of HLLs emerges as a student who (1) acquired English in early childhood, after acquiring the HL; (2) has limited exposure to the HL outside the home; (3) has relatively strong aural and oral skills but limited literacy skills; (4) has positive HL attitudes and experiences; and (5) studies the HL mainly to connect with communities of speakers in the United States and to gain insights into his or her roots.We argue that a community-based curriculum represents an effective way to harness the wealth of knowledge and experiences that HLLs bring to the classroom and to respond to their goals for their HL. Key words: community-based curriculum, heritage language (HL), heritage language attitudes, heritage language learners (HLL), motivations Introduction A comparison of the U.S. Census Bureau data of the censuses of 1990 and 2000 as well as the Community Estimates of 2007 and 2008 reveals that this country has been experiencing an unprecedented increase in immigration, which results in an increase of speakers of languages other than English and correspondingly larger enrollments of ''heritage speakers'' of these languages in classes of world languages. For example, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey 1 figures of 2008, several languages posted significant increases in speakers in the past 20 years. Spanish (34,559,894), Chinese (2,465,761), Tagalog (1,488,385), Vietnamese (1,332,633), Korean (1,051,641), and Russian (864,069) are among these languages (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009, n.p.). This creates a steady stream of students who speak a language other than English at home and enroll in classes of world languages to gain literacy and improve or maintain their home languages. Instructors have been concerned with teaching these students who, as we show, may require a different curriculum because of their specific proficiencies. This article reports on a national survey of heritage language learners (HLLs) that aims to inform the design of curricula, materials, and professional development projects in the area of heritage language (HL) teaching.1 The survey offers an unprecedented look at the linguistic profiles, goals, and attitudes of college-level HLLs across different languages and geographic regions in the United States.2 The ever-growing presence of HLLs in foreign language departments has created an unprecedented need for this kind of information as well as for clarity regarding basic terms and issues surrounding HL teaching. Wiley (2001) explained the importance of the label ''heritage language learner'': The labels and definitions that we apply to heritage language learners are important, because they help to shape the status of the learners and the languages they are learning. Deciding on what types of learners should be included under the heritage language label raises a number of issues related to identity and inclusion and exclusion. . . . Some learners, with a desire to establish a connection with a past language, might not be speakers of that language yet. (p. 35) The labels applied to the learners and languages that fall under the domain of ''heritage language teaching'' vary considerably, depending on the importance assigned to learners' ability to speak the HL. Fishman (2001, p. 81) defined HLs ''as those that (a) are LOTEs (languages other than English) and that (b) have a particular family relevance to the learners.'' Van Deusen- Scholl (2003, p. 222) used the term ''learners with a heritage motivation'' in reference to those ''raised with a strong cultural connection to a particular language through family interaction.'' Hornberger and Wang (2008, p. 27) definedHLLs as ''individuals who have familial or ancestral ties to a particular language that is not English and who exert their agency in determining whether or not they are HLLs (heritage language learners) of that HL (heritage language) and HC (heritage community). …

Heritage speakers are people raised in a home where one language is spoken who subsequently switch to another dominant language. The version of the home language that they have not completely acquired – heritage language – has only recently been given the attention it deserves from linguists and language instructors. Despite the appearance of great variation among heritage speakers, they fall along a continuum based upon the speakers’ distance from the baseline language. Such a continuum-based model enables researchers and instructors to classify heritage speakers more accurately and readily. This article discusses the results of research on lower-proficiency speakers, identifying recurrent features of heritage languages in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Preliminary results indicate that different heritage languages share a number of structural similarities; this finding is important for the understanding of general processes involved in language acquisition. The article also presents implications of the main findings for language education and identifies areas needing further study.

This study explored the possibility of using an ACTFL oral proficiency interview (OPI) to assess the spoken proficiency of heritage language speakers of Russian for the purpose of placing them in Russian language classes. The authors also considered whether the norm of an educated native speaker could be used as a valid reference point for Russian heritage speakers. The OPI was administered to a group of college-age Russian heritage speakers with little or no formal instruction in the language. The results indicated that the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines could be used to assess oral proficiency of Russian heritage speakers and that the standard of an educated native speaker ofRussian could be used as a norm.