Bilingualism, Heritage Language

Learners, and SLA Research:

Opportunities Lost or Seized?
GUADALUPE VALDES
Departmentof Spanish and Portuguese
Stanford University
Pigott Hall, Building 260
Stanford, CA 94305-2014
Email: [email protected]

In this article I invite a reconceptualization and expansion of the field of second language
acquisition (SLA) by examining possible intersections between SLA and the area of language
instruction currently referred to as the teaching of heritage languages. I discuss the ways
in which the opportunity of broadening SLA-and-instruction research can be seized by cur-
rent researchers so that it can address the most intractable educational problems involving
language. Drawing from current research on bilingualism, I first describe the challenges of
providing language instruction for heritage speakers and examine the bilingualism of these
unique language learners. I then offer an overview of the questions raised by the study of her-
itage language learners. Finally, I describe communities of professional practice and existing
disciplinary boundaries and conclude with a discussion of the ways in which the field of SLA
can draw from other areas in order to affect the educational futures of language minority
children around the world and, at the same time, contribute to our greater understanding of
the human language faculty.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO inquiry. My own position concurs with the for-
invite a reconceptualization and expansion of mer. I agree with Ortega's injunctions (this issue)
the field of second language acquisition (SLA) about the role and purpose of research: (a) that
by examining possible intersections between SLA research should be inspired by considerations of
and the area of language instruction currently re- societal needs, and (b) that in carrying out re-
ferred to as the teaching of heritage languages. search we should embrace with genuine concern
In proposing a reconceptualization of SLA, I am questions of "for whom" and "for what."
well aware of the existing disagreement within this In proposing a reconceptualization of SLA, I
field about the relationship between SLA and lan- argue that an intersection between the area of
guage pedagogy. Some researchers (e.g., Crookes, heritage language teaching and SLA responds
1997; Spolsky, 1990) consider that a relationship to Cook's (2002) proposal to researchers to al-
between these two areas is fundamental, while oth- ter the perspective of SLA by including second
ers (e.g., Sharwood Smith, 1994) view SLA as en- language (L2) users. I also suggest that a mean-
gaged in basic rather than applied research and ingful connection between these two areas would
in contributing, not to the teaching of language, begin to address recent criticisms about the nar-
but to the understanding of the workings of the rowness of SLA (Block, 2003; Firth & Wagner,
human mind while following the methodological 1997; Johnson, 2004) by focusing on the com-
standards of quantitative-experimental scientific plexities of heritage language speakers within
whose lives commonplace concepts such as mother
tongue, first language, second language, dominant
The Modern Language Journal, 89, iii, (2005) language, and home language become problematic.
0026-7902/05/410-426 $1.50/0 I maintain that the term Second Language Acqui-
02005 The Modern LanguageJournal sition, as Block (2003) has argued, has "built-in
Guadalupe Valdis 411

assumptions about monolingualism and separa- itage language students. Such minorities include
ble Li [first language] and L2 competences" populations who are either indigenous to a par-
(p. 44). These assumptions have not allowed the ticular region of a present-day nation-state (e.g.,
field to engage in the examination of instructed Aborigines in Australia, speakers of Breton in
language acquisition beyond L2 learners or to France, Kurds in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq) or pop-
address the most challenging issues and prob- ulations that have migrated to areas other than
lems that arise in various educational contexts their own regions or nations of origin (e.g., Mex-
for the most vulnerable minority language speak- icans in the United States, Turks in Germany,
ers around the world. A reconceptualized field of Moroccans in Spain, Pakistanis in England). Mi-
SLA, as I envision it in this article, would exam- nority languages or heritage languages include
ine language learning in various language edu- indigenous languages that are often endangered
cation contexts and view the language education and in danger of disappearing (Scots Gaelic,
field as going beyond beginning, intermediate, Maori, Rornani) as well as world languages that
and advanced L2 instruction and as involving sev- are commonly spoken in many other regions
eral types of language acquisition/development of the world (Spanish in the United States,
as well, such as acquisition of second dialects, Arabic in France).' Because these speakers may
acquisition of a standard language, acquisition acquire and use two or more languages in order to
or development of specialized language registers meet their everyday communicative needs in such
and styles, and acquisition of written language. I settings, they have been referred to as circumstan-
strongly believe that this reconceptualization has tial bilinguals/multilinguals (Vald6s & Figueroa,
the potential to allow the field of SLA to address 1994) and contrasted with elite or elective bilin-
today's most intractable educational problems in- guals/multilinguals who learn a L2 in classroom
voling language. settings and have few opportunities to use the
The article is organized as follows. I first de- language for genuine communication. Circum-
scribe the challenges of providing language in- stantial bilingualism/multilingualism is generally
struction for heritage speakers and examine the characteristic of populations who occupy subal-
bilingualism of these unique language learners. In tern positions in particular settings, whether they
doing so, I draw on a bilingualist perspective of L2 are indigenous minorities in established nation
and heritage language acquisition that emerges states (e.g., Bretons, Samis, Kurds) or other bor-
from the study of bilingualism and has been advo- der crossers such as migrants, refugees, nomads,
cated by some in SLA (notably, Cook, 1992, 2002). and exiles.
I argue, however, that the term L1/L2 user is a bet- As the work carried out by Fishman (1964,
ter choice than L2 user as a synonym for the her- 1985) has made evident, minority language com-
itage language learner. I then offer an overview of munities in the United States have been deeply
the questions raised for the field of SLA by this par- committed to maintaining their community lan-
ticular educational endeavor. Finally, I describe guages. In spite of strong assimilative pressures,
communities of professional practice and exist- these communities have nevertheless established
ing disciplinary boundaries and conclude with a language programs (e.g., Saturday schools) where
discussion of the ways in which the opportunity children are expected to develop existing her-
of broadening the field of SLA can be seized by itage language proficiencies. Within the last few
current researchers so that it can directly affect years, moreover, individuals concerned about
the educational futures of language minority chil- the erosion and disappearance of minority lan-
dren around the world and, at the same time, guages have turned to educational institutions
contribute to our greater understanding of the in the hope that formal classroom instruction,
human language faculty. by revitalizing and developing the home lan-
guages of young speakers of indigenous and
immigrant languages, will be able to retard lan-
HERITAGE LANGUAGE SPEAKERS:
PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION guage shift. Fishman (2001) has argued that for
these individuals and communities it is the his-
In recent years, the term heritage language has torical and personal connection to the heritage
been used broadly to refer to nonsocietal and language that is salient and not the actual profi-
nonmajority languages spoken by groups often ciency of individual students. Armenian, for ex-
known as linguistic minorities. Those members ample, would be considered a heritage language
of linguistic minorities who are concerned about for American students of Armenian ancestry even
the study, maintenance, and revitalization of their if such students were themselves English-speaking
minority languages have been referred to as her- monolinguals. In terms of strengthening and
412 The Modern LanguageJournal89 (2005)

preserving Armenian in this country, such her- large numbers of students who already under-
itage students would be seen as having an impor- stood and spoke the language that they taught.
tant personal connection with the language and They had been doing so since the early 1970s, in
an investment in maintaining the language for fu- response to increasingly large numbers of Span-
ture generations. Their motivation for studying ish heritage students who turned to already ex-
Armenian would thus contrast significantly with isting foreign language programs in language de-
that of typical students of foreign language. partments at the postsecondary level in the hope
I have argued elsewhere (Vald&s, 2000a, 2000b, of developing their home languages. The large
2001) that the foreign language teaching profes- number of Spanish speakers entering the coun-
sion currently uses the term heritagestudent in a re- try undoubtedly was part of the trend that signif-
stricted sense that is distinct from the broad sense icantly affected the Spanish-teaching profession.
of the term outlined above. In the foreign lan- College-and university-level faculty who had expe-
guage teaching profession, the term designates rience in teaching Spanish as a foreign language
a student of language who is raised in a home opened their doors to students who, in some cases,
where a non-English language is spoken. The stu- were more fluent in the language than they were,
dent may speak or merely understand the her- but who could not talk about the language us-
itage language and be, to some degree, bilingual ing the terminology used in the teaching of tradi-
in English and the heritage language. This defini- tional grammar. Individuals involved in teaching
tion is distinct from the scenario described above Spanish to such students in the classroom setting
where individuals work with endangered indige- quickly discovered that these young people had a
nous or immigrant languages that are not regu- very difficult time learning grammar rules taught
larly taught in school (e.g., as in the case of Ar- to foreign language students. Not only did they
menian). This difference has to do with actually become confused by explanations of aspects of
developed functional proficiencies in the heritage the language that they already knew (e.g., the
languages. Moreover, for foreign language teach- difference between ser and estar), but they also
ing professionals, the term refers to a group of refused to confine themselves to the limited vo-
young people who are different in important ways cabulary of the textbook. Because many Latino
from English-speaking monolingual students who students who entered college had been schooled
have traditionally undertaken the study of foreign exclusively in English, they had no experience
languages in U.S. schools and colleges. This need in reading and writing in Spanish. Worst of all-
to distinguish between the two groups of students from the perspective of some faculty-they were
arose in the Spanish-teaching profession during often speakers of stigmatized varieties of Spanish
the 1970s. At that time, the terms native speak- (e.g., rural Mexican Spanish, rural Puerto Rican
ers of Spanish, quasi native speakers of Spanish, and Spanish). There were no textbooks on the market
bilingualstudents were common. A dissatisfaction that could adequately deal with the "problem,"
with these labels led to increased use of other and there was little agreement among Spanish-
terms such as home background speakers (as used in teaching professionals (most of whom had been
Australia) and heritage language speakers (as used trained in literature) about what to do and how to
in Canada). Members of the profession in the do it. The consensus, reflected in the textbooks
United States are currently engaged in examin- of that period (e.g., Baker, 1966; Barker, 1972),
ing the use of the term heritage language student was that bilingual hispanophone students were in
as they research the various types of students who need of remediation, of techniques and pedago-
have a family background in which a non-English gies that would help undo the damage that had
language is, or was, spoken. been done at home.2 The terms used during those
years by the Spanish-teaching profession to refer
to these students-native speakers of Spanish, quasi
LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND HERITAGE
SPEAKERS IN THE UNITED STATES native speakers of Spanish, or bilingual students-
reflected this deficit orientation. As mentioned
The use of the term heritage student in the earlier, with time, other more positive terms such
restricted sense adopted within the foreign lan- as home background speakers and heritage language
guage teaching profession is relatively new, and speakers gained currency.
its use was not generalized until the publication Since the early 1970s, the teaching of com-
of the Standardsfor Foreign Language Learning monly and uncommonly taught foreign lan-
(ACTFL, 1996). Up to that time, Spanish instruc- guages has greatly expanded. Interest in heritage
tors were the only members of the foreign lan- students and improvements in educational ap-
guage teaching profession who had worked with proaches and resources began in the late 1990s
Guadalupe Valdes 413

and continue today. Increased attention to the port on research priorities on the teaching of her-
role of formal instruction in maintaining heritage itage languages entitled Directions in Research: In-
languages has come about as a consequence of tergenerational Transmission of Heritage Languages
the events of September llth, which brought to (Campbell & Christian, 2003).
the nation's attention the strategic importance
of "foreign" languages. As a result, the intelli- THE BILINGUALISM OF AMERICAN
gence and military communities (Muller, 2002) HERITAGE LANGUAGE STUDENTS
have expressed a growing interest in expanding
the nation's linguistic resources by both teach- American heritage language students include
ing non-English languages and by maintaining children of native American background, foreign-
the heritage or home languages of the 47 mil- born immigrants who came to the United States at
lion individuals who reported speaking both En- a young age, the native-born children of foreign-
glish and a non-English language in the latest born immigrants, and occasionally the native-
census in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). For born children of native-born individuals of immi-
many individuals concerned about language re- grant background. The experiences of these her-
sources, the development of strategic languages itage speakers are similar. They speak or hear the
can only be brought about by expanding the mis- heritage language spoken at home and in their
sion of foreign language departments to include immediate communities, but, with few exceptions
the maintenance and expansion of the varieties (e.g., Foreign Language Elementary School pro-
of non-English languages currently spoken by im- grams, Bilingual Education), they receive their
migrants, refuigees, and their children. formal education entirely in English. They receive
Professional activities focusing on the teach- no instruction in the heritage language during the
ing of heritage languages have increased enor- elementary or secondary grades and, as a result,
mously. The American Association of Teachers become literate only in English.
of Spanish and Portuguese (AATSP) initiated
its Professional Development Series Handbooks for HeritageLearnersas L1/L2 Users
Teachers K-16 with Volume 1: Spanish for Na-
tive Speakers (AATSP, 2000). The National For- In the last several years, Vivian Cook, a very
eign Language Center (NFLC) in cooperation distinguished researcher in the area of SLA, has
with the AATSP developed a language-based re- made a strong case for the study of what he refers
source, Recursos para la Ensefianza y el Apren- to as multicompetence (Cook, 1992, 2002). He has
dizaje de las Culturas Hispanas, known as REACH argued that it is of particular importance for the
(http://www.nflc.org/REACH/), for teachers of SLA field to engage in the study of the L2 user an
Spanish to heritage speakers. The NFLC also individual who has knowledge of and uses a L2,
developed LangNet, a searchable database that rather than to engage in the exclusive study of the
includes Spanish and contains numerous re- L2 learner, an individual whose task of acquisition
sources for the teaching of heritage languages. is seen as not yet finished. Drawing from research
In collaboration with the AATSP, the NFLC on bilingualism, he has pointed out, moreover,
also conducted a survey of Spanish language that L2 users are, by definition, different from
programs for native speakers (Ingold, Rivers, monolingual speakers. Rejecting the view that the
Tesser, & Ashby, 2002). The Center for Ap- ultimate state of L2 learning is to pass undetected
plied Linguistics and the NFLC launched the among native speakers, Cook (2002) emphasized
Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage Lan- that "the minds, languages and lives of L2 users
guages (http://www.cal.org/heritage/). The Al- are different from those of monolinguals," and
liance sponsored two national conferences, in that "L2 users are not failures because they are dif-
1999 and 2002, on the teaching of heritage lan- ferent" (p. 9). In suggesting the term L2 user and
guages in which many members of the Spanish- rejecting the designation bilingual, Cook (2002)
teaching profession participated. The first con- pointed out that the term has "contradictory defi-
ference led to the publication of the volume Her- nitions and associations in both popular and aca-
itage Languages in America (Peyton, Ranard, & demic usage" (p. 4).
McGinnis, 2001), in which much attention was Although I do not disagree with Cook about
given to the teaching of uncommonly taught lan- the contradictory definitions of the term bilin-
guages, and also to the publication of a special gual, I nevertheless argue that the term L2 user
issue of the BilingualResearchJournalfocusing on is not entirely appropriate for the description of
heritage languages (Wiley & Vald6s, 2000). The heritage language learners who may, at different
second conference led to the publication of a re- points in their lives, exhibit various degrees of
414 The Modern LanguageJournal 89 (2005)

language expertise and language affiliation in over the world, such different types of Ll/L2 users
spite of their language inheritance (Leung, live together and interact with each other and with
Harris, & Rampton, 1997; Rampton, 1997). Even monolinguals on a daily basis, using one or the
though the term L2 user implies the continued other of their two languages. L1/L2 users will fluc-
use of the Li, and even though recent work on L2 tuate in their preference or perceived strengths in
users (Cook, 2003a) is clearly concerned about each language, depending on the nature of the in-
the relationship of the LI to the L2 and of the L2 teraction, the topic of discussion, the domain of
to the LI, it is my position that the term L2 user still activity, and the formality or the informality of the
tends to emphasize and focus attention primarily situation.
on the L2. In this article, I therefore use the term
L1/L2 user interchangeably with heritage student
HeritageLearners (L1/L2 Users) as Speakers of
to describe heritage learners, many of whom ac- Contact Varieties of Language
quire the L2 in a combination of naturalistic and
instructed settings. L1/L2 users are speakers of what is known in
the field of bilingualism and sociolinguistics as
The L1/L2 User Continuum contact varieties of language. Languages are said
to be in contact (Weinreich, 1974) when they are
Although absolutely equivalent abilities in two used alternately by the same speakers to engage
languages are theoretically possible, except, for in communication. A Singaporean youngster, for
rare geographical and familial accidents, individ- example, who uses Chinese at home, English
uals seldom have access to two languages in ex- in school, Malay in the market place, and both
actly the same contexts in every domain of inter- Chinese and English with his same-age friends,
action. L1/L2 users do not have the opportunity lives in a setting in which Malay, English, and
to use two languages to carry out the exact same Chinese are in contact. The young speaker him-
functions with all individuals with whom they in- self is considered to be the locus of language
teract or to use their languages intellectually to contact.
the same degree. They thus do not develop iden- Contact varieties of language have developed
tical strengths in both languages. Heritage L1/L2 in very different types of settings all over the
users are bilingual individuals who manifest very world, most frequently as a result of a socio-
different strengths in their two languages and who historical background involving nation-building,
may best be thought of as falling along a contin- conquest, colonization, and immigration. Exam-
uum of different types of bilinguals such as that ples include the so-called New Englishes spoken
presented in Figure 1. around the world in postcolonial settings (e.g., In-
In Figure 1, different size fonts indicate differ- dian English); the varieties of Spanish spoken by
ent language strengths in language A and lan- Quechua, Aymara, and Maya bilinguals in Latin
guage B for different L1/L2 users. A recently America; as well as Canadian French; Louisiana
arrived immigrant, for example, might be repre- French; Chicano English; and varieties of U.S.
sented as Ab (dominant in the immigrant lan- Spanish. In the United States, all non-English lan-
guage and in the beginning stages of learning guages spoken by indigenous or immigrant mi-
English). Similarly, a fourth-generation L1/L2 norities as well as by political refugees, exiles, and
user could be represented as Ba (having acquired professional elites are in contact with English in
English as a LI, dominant in English, and still that these non-English languages are used alter-
retaining some proficiency in the immigrant lan- nately with English by the same speakers. As is
guage). In minority language communities all the case with all languages in contact-depending

FIGURE 1
A Continuum of L1/L2 Users

Monolingual Monolingual

A AbAbAbAbAb AB aB aB Ba BaBaBaB. B
Guadalupe Valdes 415

on a variety of social factors-the results of such switch is evident to a greater degree. Grosjean
contact may include language shift (the abandon- argued that, since language behavior in different
ment of the regular use of the non-English lan- modes most probably reflects how bilinguals pro-
guage) as well as development of ways of speaking cess their two languages, research on bilingual
that are different from those used by monolingual competence and performance must take into ac-
speakers in countries of origin. In such settings, count language mode.
bilingual individuals develop a special bilingual The notion of the native speaker-especially as
communication mode (Grosjean, 1997), used pri- applied to bilingual individuals-is neither sim-
marily with other bilinguals, that is character- ple, obvious, nor straightforward (Davis, 1991,
ized by widespread borrowing of lexical items as 2003). From some perspectives (e.g., Coulmas,
well as by code-switching, the alternating use of 1981), potential informants can only be speakers
two languages at word, phrase, or clause levels. "whose first language it is" (p. 4). According to
Over time, contact varieties of language are often this view, there is a qualitative difference between
characterized by loss, addition, and replacement a Li and a L2. Other students of the concept of na-
of linguistic features. tive speaker take an even more extreme position.
Ballmer (1981), for example, argued that bilin-
The Knowledge Systems of L1/L2 Users: A gual individuals are not native speakers of either
BilingualistPerspective of their languages. According to Kramsch (1997),
"originally, native speakership was viewed as an un-
By definition, L1/L2 users have internalized controversial privilege of birth. Those who were
two implicit linguistic knowledge systems, one in born into a language were considered its native
each of their languages. Whether they acquired speakers, with grammatical intuitions that non-
the societal language and the heritage language native speakers did not have" (p. 363). Kramsch
simultaneously As infants or sequentially as young argued that a close examination of the concept
children or as adolescents, L1/L2 users utilize reveals that it has often been linked to social class
their two languages on an everyday basis with in- and to education. She maintained that the native-
terlocutors who are both monolingual in each of speaker norm that has been recognized by for-
their two languages as well as bilingual in both lan- eign language departments in the United States,
guages. Moreover, as GrosJean (1985) and Cook for example, is that of "the middle-class, ethni-
(1997) have argued, L1/L2 users are not two cally dominant male citizenry of nation-states" (p.
monolinguals in one, but rather specific speaker- 363). By implication, the language of non-middle-
hearers who have acquired their two languages class citizens of such nations has been considered
in particular contexts and for particular reasons. suspect.
Viewed from a bilingualist rather than a mono- Taking a slightly different perspective, Haugen
lingualist perspective, L1/L2 users have acquired (1970) contended that the native-speaker norm,
two knowledge systems that they use in order carry even as a popular concept, is difficult to apply to
out their particular communicative needs, needs most bilinguals:
that may be quite unlike those of monolingual
To be natively competent in two languages would
native speakers who use a single language in all
then mean to have had two childhoods, so that all
communicative interactions. the joys and frustrations of the fundamental period
Also arguing for a bilingualist perspective on of life could penetrate one's emotional response to
L1/L2 users, Grosjean (1997) contended that, at the simple words of the language. It would mean to
any given moment, bilinguals are in states of acti- have acquired the skills of reading and writing that
vation of their languages and language processing go with two separate educational systems such as all
mechanisms that are either monolingual or bilin- literate societies now impose on their adolescents, or
gual. Depending on the base language used and the corresponding rigorous forms of initiation and
the interlocutors involved, a L1/L2 user will be skill development that formed part of all nonliterate
either in (a) a monolingual mode in language A, societies. It would mean to have two different identi-
ties, one looking at the world from one point of view,
(b) a monolingual mode in language B, or (c) a
the other from another: it would mean sharing in the
bilingual mode. While the language user is in one social forms, prejudices, and insights of two cultures.
or the other of the monolingual modes, the other In short, it would mean being two entirely different
language is deactivated to some extent and trans- people. (p. 225)
fer between the two languages is reduced. While
the speaker is in the bilingual mode, however, be- More important, is it perhaps not the case that
cause both languages are active, transfer between all monolingual native speakers would be success-
the two languages as well as the tendency to code- ful if measured against the norm of the educated
416 The Modern LanguageJournal89 (2005)

native speaker? It thus makes little sense to, use sociolinguistic research as well as beyond other
a monolingual native-speaker norm to evalirate categorizations that have focused on recency of
the competence of L1/L2 users. As Cook (1997) arrival, schooling, and access to the standard lan-
has argued, it is not clear why we should "ever guage (e.g., Valds, 1995). For pedagogical pur-
compare two types of people in terms of a book- poses, useful classifications should be able to pro-
keeping exercise of profit and loss" (p. 294). -videinformation about the linguistic proficiencies
of L1/L2 users, the characteristics of their under-
QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE STUDY OF lying implicit knowledge systems, and the differ-
L1/L2 USERS ences among L1/L2 users of the same generation
and background.
The greatest challenge facing the foreign lan- In order to provide adequate instruction for
guage profession in teaching Ll/L2 users who L1/L2 users, it is important to determine not only
elect to maintain or develop their LI in formal in- speaking fluency in general, but also the number
structional settings is the design of instruction that of registers and varieties that speakers can pro-
is not only appropriate for their current and fu- duce and understand as well as their levels of lit-
ture needs but that is also based on coherent the- eracy in the heritage language. Fine-grained cat-
ories of instructed language acquisition for these egorizations are a necessary preliminary to the
particular groups of learners. Ideally, pedagogi- detailed study of both inter- and intraheritage
cal approaches designed for L1/L2 users would learner variation in the various subsystems of
be based on an understanding of the implicit lin- their nondominant language. Assessment proce-
guistic knowledge systems of these learners and dures are needed that adapt or draw directly from
on a familiarity with the processes involved when methodologies used in the study of fossilization
speakers of such nondominant first languages at- in L2 learners (Han, 2003) and that include oral
tempt to develop or re-acquire these languages and written proficiency tests, dialect- and register-
in formal instructional settings. At present,' al- sensitive cloze procedures (Gibbons & Ramirez,
though we have some knowledge of the role of 2004), and grammaticality or acceptability judg-
instruction in restructuring the interlanguages of ments. A focus on the linguistic forms frequently
L2 learners, 3 we have no information about the examined by L2 researchers might be especially
role of formal instruction in restructuring or re- useful in comparing L1/L2 users with L2 learners
shaping the knowledge systems of learners Who and in examining the role of instruction in the de-
are in many ways quite different from traditional velopment/reacquisition of heritage languages in
classroom learners. classroom contexts.

Identifying Key Differences among L1/L2 Users Identifying the Communal Language

Given the complexity of the bilingual experi- It is clear that, in order to understand the
ence and the fact that there are few L1/L2 users knowledge systems of L1/L2 users, an analytical
who are ambilingual, we can hypothesize that model is needed that is capable not only of "trac-
there are important differences in the implicit ing changes in relative LI competence over time,
linguistic knowledge systems of various types of after immigrants have arrived in the L2 environ-
L1/L2 users who are grouped under the label ment" (Kenny, 1996, p. 6), but also of providing
heritage speakers in an academic context. A !re- information about what Mufwene (2001) referred
search agenda designed to support theories of the to as the communal language to which they have
development/reacquisition of heritage languages been exposed as well as the I-Language (an indi-
that are acquired as Lls by these users, therefore, vidual speaker's idiolect). A speaker who has been
would need to begin by developing procedures raised in a community within which the commu-
for examining similarities and differences amo!ng nal language is a contact variety of that language,
individual heritage speakers of the same language for example, will produce speech that may appear
as well as between categories of heritage speakers flawed from the perspective of an urban or pres-
of different languages. These procedures would tige monolingual variety. Such seemingly flawed
be directed to the development of typologies of speech, however, might nevertheless be gener-
heritage speakers that are potentially important ated by a fully acquired linguistic system that has
for classroom instruction. What are needed are not undergone attrition. As Kenny (1996) argued,
typologies that go beyond the traditional genera- in understanding language loss or attrition, re-
tional categorizations (first, second, third gener- searchers must go beyond a structural approach
ation) of immigrant speakers commonly used in that is limited to the identification and analysis of
Guadalupe Valdes 417
linguistic elements that appear to be either dif- at school age had not yet acquired the complete
ferent or missing when compared to the speech tense, aspect, and mood system of Spanish. Ex-
of normative Li speakers. In immigrant commu- planations she considered include (a) the limited
nities, the various incoming varieties of the her- access to Spanish language input, given that in Los
itage language may have converged to produce a Angeles the use of Spanish in the home appears
new dialect through processes involving accom- to be much less frequent among both second-
modation, the development of interdialectalisms, and third-generation speakers than among first-
leveling, and simplification (Penny, 2000). The re- generation speakers; and (b) the extended, in-
sulting communal language may have undergone tensive contact with the societal language in the
a series of both downward and upward changes school context, which appears to interrupt the
through the imitation of both the features used normal process of Li acquisition in later child-
by high prestige speakers as well as features used hood. Heritage language children move through
by less privileged speakers who nevertheless en- the same stages of acquisition at an early stage as
joy covert prestige. Features that were stigma- do youngsters in monolingual settings, although
tized in the original home country, for example, at possibly a different rate and, once the L2 be-
may spread among speakers who need particular comes dominant, their use of the Li decreases
"street credibility" (Penny, 2000, p. 69). In addi- significantly. Silva-Corvaldsn argued that, without
tion, moreover, through its contact with the domi- Ll-based school support, such children would not
nant language, the communal language may have completely acquire the linguistic system of the lan-
also undergone contact-induced language change guage as used by normative Li speakers.
(Thomason, 2001; Thomason & Kaufman, 1988) The use of a simplified verb system (as well as
through lexical and structural borrowing. Finally, the uneven control of the heritage language of-
changes may have taken place in the communal ten made evident by the constant use of pauses,
language that, while originating in the monolin- hesitations, and fillers) may not, however, indicate
gual environment, may have been accelerated be- that the language has been incompletely acquired
cause of contact with the dominant language.4 by a heritage speaker. What will not be immedi-
ately clear from superficial assessments is whether
TOWARDS A THEORY OF HERITAGE flawed production is due to interrupted acquisi-
LANGUAGE REACQUISITION/ tion, individual language attrition, or "full" acqui-
DEVELOPMENT sition of a contact variety of the heritage language
that is now quite different from the varieties of
Briefly stated, the real world problem in the the heritage language originally brought to the
case of LI/L2 users who elect to study their Li community.
formally is designing instruction that is appropri- A theory of instruction supporting the devel-
ate to their current and future needs and goals. In opment/reacquisition of a nondominant LI for
order to design appropriate instruction, it is nec- such learners will require an understanding of
essary to determine which students-by formally how and whether the implicit systems of speak-
studying their LI-are involved in one or more of ers who have incompletely acquired the heritage
the following processes: (a) acquisition of incom- language, speakers whose heritage language has
pletely acquired features of the LI as a "second" undergone attrition, and speakers of a heritage
language, (b) first language (re-)acquisition in- language that has undergone extensive change
volving the acquisition of features that have under- are alike or different. What needs to be explored
gone attrition, (c) acquisition of a second dialect is how these different systems-if indeed they are
(D2 acquisition), (d) development of discourse different-might be reshaped by formal instruc-
skills in the written and oral language including tion. In the case of incomplete acquisition, the in-
the acquisition of formal registers and styles (R2 structional problem to be solved might involve, for
acquisition) and literacy, and (e) expansion of re- example, the full acquisition of tense, aspect, and
ceptive proficiencies into productive grammars. mood in the L1. Instructional approaches might,
therefore, include L2 methodologies used in the
Incomplete Acquisition of the HeritageLanguage teaching of both the oral and written language to
L2 learners.
Some heritage speakers seeking formal instruc-
tion in their Li may have incompletely acquired Reacquisition of Featuresafter Attrition
some features of the language. In her work on
the Spanish of Los Angeles, for example, Silva- In the case of language attrition (the ero-
Corvaldin (1994, 2003a, 2003b) reported on the sion, decay, contraction, or obsolescence of a lan-
Spanish of young children in Los Angeles who guage), the process of reacquisition might be
418 The Modern LanguageJournal89 (2005)

quite different. Much attention, therefore, must be answered by examining the effects of different
be given to the study of suspected language attri- types of instruction designed to reverse attrition
tion among heritage learners. What needs toibe in a category of students who have been carefully
understood is both the process and the speed of identified as having undergone attrition in their
attrition in individuals who are members of par- heritage language.
ticular communities as well as the subsystems that
undergo attrition. In a foundational article on lan-
Instructionfor Heritage Speakers of Contact Varieties:
guage attrition, Anderson (1982) argued that lan- D2 and R2 Acquisition
guage attrition researchers must take into account
comprehension and production, uses of both oral For the L1/L2 user who has fully acquired a
and written language, traditional linguistic levels communal language that has undergone exten-
(i.e., phonology, morphology, syntax) as well as sive changes through its contact with other vari-
functions, domains of use, and discourse com- eties of the same language and with the dominant
petencies of the speakers in question. Anderson language, the instructional problem to be solved
maintained that for each linguistic feature exam- is quite different. If the goal is for such speak-
ined, researchers must have what he terms a base- ers to acquire the normative monolingual variety
line comparison (p. 85); that is, they must have two through formal instruction, what needs to be un-
types of normative data: (a) the normal use of par- derstood is the process of D2 acquisition. These
ticular features by fully competent speakers, and L1/L2 users are not involved in acquiring parts
(b) the use of the features by the individuals being of a system that they have incompletely acquired,
studied before they underwent language attrition. nor are they involved in reacquiring subsystems
Anderson emphasized that a distinction must be that have been lost. In this case, heritage speakers
made between dysfunctional attrition,which causes are involved in acquiring an additional variety of
a reduction in communication, and cosmetic attri- the same language. What they must learn is which
tion, which involves the reduction of features that features of the communal language correspond
are socially valued but which does not interfere to the features of the normative monolingual va-
with communication. rieties of the language and which features do not.
Unfortunately, diagnosing attrition and distin- A possible theory of D2 acquisition, for example,
guishing attrition from incomplete acquisition as might parallel theories of L2 acquisition and pro-
well as from full acquisition of a contact variety pose that in acquiring D2s, learners move through
of a language on the basis of language assessment a set of interdialect grammars until they reach
procedures is not simple. The same features listed the desired end state. In addition, if the goal of
by Anderson to signal attrition (use of analytic heritage language instruction is also for these D2
vs. synthetic structures, use of lexical borrowings, learners to develop reading and writing skills, lit-
convergence of syntactic form, cognate transfer, eracy instruction would ideally be based on an
literal translation) could be indicative of all three understanding of the differences and similarities
types of conditions. In the case of language attri- between literacy acquisition in a D2 and literacy
tion, the goal of instruction is either reacquisition acquisition in both a Li and a L2.
of the subsystems that have undergone attrition, If the goal of heritage language instruction for
or the reversal of ongoing attrition of particular L1/L2 users who are acquiring a D2 is also for
subsystems and features, or both. One can conjec- them to extend their repertoires to include styles
ture that if attrition is caused by a removal from and registers of the heritage language appropriate
"the type and quantity of linguistic input and lin- for communicating in academic or professional
guistic interaction necessary to maintain the full settings, instruction must be based on an under-
lexical, phonological, morphological, and syntac- standing of the acquisition of additional registers
tic distinctions that are made by fluent compe- by monolingual speakers who have not had ac-
tent speakers of this language" (Anderson, 1982, cess to contexts in which these particular registers
p. 91), reversal of attrition would need to in- are used. The instructional goal to be achieved in
volve rich input and intensive interaction typical this case is the acquisition of additional registers
of monolingual linguistic environments. Without (R2 acquisition), that is, a set of discourse prac-
evidence to the contrary one could not conclude tices that are directly tied to values and norms
that direct forms or form-focused instruction or of a particular social group (Gee, 1990). As Gee
other typical pedagogies used in L2 instruction also pointed out, however, particular discourse
would be particularly beneficial in the process of practices are difficult to acquire in classroom set-
reacquisition or reversal of attrition. This is, how- tings because learners may have little or no access
ever, an empirical question, and one that can only to speakers who use these particular specialized
Guadalupe Valdis 419
registers. In attempting to add such higher reg- Questionsfor the Study of Instructed Heritage
isters of their heritage language to their reper- LanguageAcquisition
toires, L1/L2 users may attempt to produce these
registers by transferring and adapting features of In sum, the challenge of designing instruction
similar registers from their L2. A possible theory in the Li for L1/L2 users raises a number of im-
of R2 acquisition might, therefore, parallel theo- portant theoretical issues for practitioners who
ries of L2 and D2 acquisition and propose, as did want to maintain or develop heritage languages
Vald6s and Geoffrion-Vinci (1998), that in acquir- as well as for researchers seeking to understand
ing second or additional registers, learners move the human language faculty. Some of these ques-
through a set of interregisters until they reach tions include:
the desired end state. Clearly; in order to develop 1. How can the different sources of "flawed"
adequate and effective instruction for heritage language production (interlanguages? inter-
learners whose goal it is to acquire additional vari- dialects? interregisters?) in the Li of Li/L2 users
eties and registers of the heritage language, care- be identified?
ful research must be carried out on the process 2. How does the "flawed" language production
of D2 and R2 acquisition in naturalistic settings as of LI/L2 users compare with that of L2 learners?
well as on the effects of different types of instruc- 3. How do monolingual LI speakers acquire a
tion on both of these processes. range of registers and genres in their Li?
4. What is the order of acquisition of particular
features of R2s and second genres by Li speakers?
Receptive and Productive Grammars 5. How do monolingual Li speakers acquire a
D2?
A final category of heritage speakers includes 6. What is the order of acquisition of particular
L1/L2 users who cannot or will not speak the her- features in a D2 by Li speakers?
itage language although they are able to partici- 7. Are notions of interdialect or interregister
pate in interpersonal, face-to-face communication useful in describing the acquisition of additional
with bilingual individuals who speak to them in registers and dialects of Li by LI/L2 users?
this language. These passive L1/L2 users exhibit 8. What types of conditions account for the ac-
strong receptive proficiencies in their heritage quisition of receptive versus productive compe-
language, which, although limited, still exceed tence in LI/L2 users?
the receptive proficiencies acquired by beginning 9. How can comprehension grammars (as op-
and even intermediate learners of a foreign lan- posed to productive grammars) be described?
guage. At a minimum, receptive L1/L2 users offer 10. What accounts for the development of ex-
evidence of having acquired what Clark (2003) ceptional bilinguals (simultaneous interpreters)
referred to as C-representations,that is, a system among heritage speakers (see Vald6s, 2003)?
of representations for comprehension of the lan- 11. What can formal classroom instruction ac-
guage that allows them to parse the stream of complish for LI/L2 users? Are there types of
speech into meaningful units. How this system instruction that can reverse language attrition?
is related to the productive system in the Li and What types of instruction can result in the acqui-
to the receptive and productive systems in the L2 sition of a range of registers and styles?
is of central importance to the development of
pedagogical approaches for developing the exist-
ing proficiencies of such speakers in a classroom CHANGING THE FIELD: COMMUNITIES OF
setting. A theory of heritage language growth PRACTICE AND DISCIPLINARY BOUNDARIES
or development for such individuals must be
based on a better understanding of comprehen- In considering a reconceptualization or expan-
sion and production grammars (Swain, Dumas, & sion of the field of SLA that could take on the
Naiman, 1974). We need to understand (a) challenge of examining the questions presented
how and why these two types of knowledge sys- above, researchers might first examine existing
tems develop independently, (b) how compre- professional communities of practice and make
hension and production grammars are related, evident the epistemological and methodological
(c) whether the presence of comprehension assumptions and research traditions that are part
grammars supports the acquisition of production of each contributing field. In a recent work on
grammars in specific ways, and (d) whether these the nature of academic language (Vald6s, 2004),
individuals are more similar to L2 learners than I argued that scholarly discussions do not take
to Li speakers. place in a social vacuum. Even without the insights
420 The Modern LanguageJournal89 (2005)
5 straints on borrowing. The psycholinguistic study
offered by the Bakhtin Circle about the nature
of intertextuality, it is very generally accepted of bilingualism, however, centers on study of the
that scholars engage in an ongoing dialogue with bilingual individual. Four general areas have been
other members of their academic communities of particular interest to researchers: (a) bilin-
and their professional organizations. Scholars re- guistic development and attrition, (b) informa-
spond to each other's papers, engage in polemi- tion processing in bilingual individuals, (c) neu-
cal debates about theories and their implications, ropsychological foundations of bilingualism, and
and write dense scholarly tomes, sometimes un- (d) bilingualism and cognition. Studies of bilin-
derstandable exclusively to other members of the guistic development include research on stages of
same inner scholarly circle. The context for all bilingual development, differentiation in linguis-
discussions, including academic debates, encom- tic systems, age-related specifics of consecutive
passes a multitude of dialogues that help shape,jre- bilinguality, and the role of context in bilingual ac-
configure, and constantly change the multivoiced quisition. Research on information processing in
utterances of the various speakers. The discussion bilinguals includes work on language representa-
of L2 acquisition, with its focus on L2 learners, is tion, bilingual memory, and separate versus com-
no exception. The various existing approaches in mon processors. Attention has also been given
SLA have developed and evolved in communica- to the development of models of bilingual in-
tion with a particular set of voices that are part of formation processing. Neuropsychological stud-
specific professional worlds. The study of heritage ies of bilingualism, however, include a focus on
language speakers and the discussion of heritage hemispheric preference
6
and on neuropsycholog-
language students, as well, have taken place 'in ical development.
separate communities of practice. Given the vari- As seen in Figure 2, then, the broad study of
ous boundaries of academic professions, the dia- bilingualism involves three different but related
logues about these particular areas of knowledge disciplines: sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and
are unfortunately made up of a series of uncon- linguistics. As will also be noted from the figure,
nected conversations that often fail to be heard by however, the study of incipient bilingualism, the
scholars who are members of other closely related focus of SLA research, is only a narrow subarea
professions. of the field of bilingualism, the use of two lan-
Heritage language speakers have been the fo- guages across a lifespan. Moreover, as a number
cus of researchers engaged in the study of bilin- of researchers have recently pointed out, SLA pri-
gualism. As is made evident by Figure 2, bilingual- marily draws from the fields of linguistics and psy-
ism has been studied from the perspectives of the cholinguistics (Atkinson, 2002; Block, 2003; Firth
disciplines of sociolinguistics, linguistics, and psy- & Wagner, 1997; Johnson, 2004). It does not at-
cholinguistics. tend to the social context of language use in a
Research conducted from the perspective of broad sense, and it has, to date, focused primarily
each of these three disciplines asks different ques- on L2 learners rather than L2 users. Figure 2 sug-
tions about the nature of bilingualism and bilin- gests that the study of SLA should also involve the
gual individuals. The sociolinguistic study of bilin- perspectives of the sociolinguistic study of bilin-
gualism, for example, has centered on the study gualism.
of societal bilingualism. Phenomena such as lan- Finally, in the United States, the language edu-
guage maintenance, language shift, reversal of cation field encompasses both Li teaching and L2
language shift, and language death have been of or foreign language teaching. In the case of vari-
particular interest to sociolinguists. By compari- ous aspects of Li teaching and learning, the lan-
son, linguistic studies of bilingualism focus pri- guage education field draws from research in lin-
marily on understanding how languages in con- guistics, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics to
tact can influence one another and how gram- focus on the language development of Li speak-
matical changes due to language contact differ ers, on the acquisition of academic English by
from other kinds of grammatical changes. Re- speakers of nonstandard varieties of English, and
searchers working in this tradition, for example, on the development of reading and writing by
have attended to grammatical borrowing and the both mainstream and linguistic minority students.
examination of the'influences of one language The broad language education field has also con-
on another, including phonological, morpholog- cerned itself with the acquisition of English and
ical, syntactic, and lexical transfer. Researchers with the acquisition of foreign languages. SLA,
have attempted to classify types of borrowing, to the study of incipient bilingualism, is but a small
identify the social and cultural determinants of area of the language education field and has pri-
such borrowing, and to examine structural con- marily informed L2 teaching. It is interesting that
Guadalupe Valdis 421
FIGURE 2
The Study of Bilingualism

LI/L2 users who enroll in the study of their Li OpportunitiesLost or Seized?

have been studied not by Li researchers, and un-
til recently, not by SLA researchers, but by the In imagining the reconceptualization and ex-
community of foreign language teaching practi- pansion of SLA that engages in the study of L1/L2
tioners and researchers as well as by linguists and users and that takes seriously societal needs in the
sociolinguists who are often members of foreign area of language education, I also imagine a con-
language department faculties. tinuing conversation between members of the var-
The various communities of professional prac- ious compartments depicted in Figure 2. Using as
tice delineated here ordinarily have little to do a point of departure what I referred to at the be-
with one another. Published research in jour- ginning of this article as "the most intractable edu-
nals rarely includes the perspectives of members cational problems involving language," a number
of other communities of practice. Even when of areas and questions that are crucial to school
present at conferences, members of the various success of linguistic minority children all over the
communities (e.g., Li acquisition, L2 acquisition, world come to mind. Given limitations of space,
language pedagogy, sociolinguistics) may attend however, I will propose only three topics for con-
competing sessions because large meetings are tinued consideration.
generally not organized to provide opportunities
for dialogue among experts who are part of differ- Terms Used to Refer to the LanguageEducation Field
ent professional compartments. Epistemological
and technical questions are drawn from long-term The terms used to refer to an area of inquiry
traditions within each professional community. are basic to the definition of a field. Unfortu-
What counts as knowledge, what questions are nately, the term Second Language Acquisition, as
worthy of attention, how theories are formulated Block (2003) argued, has "built-in assumptions
and tested, and how research is carried out are about monolingualism and separable LI and L2
part of the socializing professional experiences of competences" (p. 44). A reconceptualization of
every researcher. language learning in various language education
422 The Modern LanguageJournal 89 (2005)

contexts that can embrace the needs of L1/L2 lingual language (e.g., standard Spanish, stan-
users must of necessity view the language educa- dard Russian) as the norm against which the
tion field as including LI instruction in its many L1/L2 users are measured. If researchers are seri-
manifestations and involving several types of lan- ous about definitions of multicompetence (Cook
guage acquisition and development (i.e., acquisi- 2002, 2003b) and about the rejection of the knowl-
tion of D2s, acquisition of a standard language, edge of the native speaker as the ultimate goal of
acquisition and development of specialized lan- L2 acquisition, they cannot simply compare pro-
guage registers and styles, acquisition of written duction by LI/L2 users with that of native speak-
language) as well as L2 instruction that takes into ers of the standard language.
account beginning, intermediate, and advanced
learners. I propose, therefore, that the term In- PotentialContributionsof Various Areas
structed Language Acquisition (ILA) be considered of Knowledge to Specific LanguageProblems
carefully as a way of including a variety of ques-
tions and issues that will broaden the scope of The identification and examination of specific
the existing field. Alternatively, I suggest that the language problems and the potential contribu-
term EducationalLinguistics proposed by Spolsky tions of various areas of knowledge to the solution
(1978) be discussed as a label that clearly signals of these problems might well provide an organiz-
the involvement of SLA in educational contexts. ing framework for examining ethical issues revolv-
ing around knowledge and utilization. However,
Moving beyond the MonolingualNorm as Spolsky (1978) pointed out when discussing
the field of educational linguistics many years ago,
As Cook (2002) argued in proposing a shift in the notion that linguistic theories can be used di-
the perspective of SLA researchers, the study of rectly in the solution of educational problems is
L1/L2 users requires a viewpoint that no longer naive. Today, addressing educational problems in-
focuses exclusively on the educated monolingual volving language will require the collaboration of
native speaker. It requires an understanding of researchers from many different backgrounds, in-
both societal and individual bilingualism and a cluding nonlinguist educational researchers who
consideration of the methodological issues cen- have a deep understanding of educational policy,
tral to the study of the language behavior of bilin- schools, classrooms, and ways in which knowledge
gual persons that were raised by Wei (2000). As about language might inform particular practices.
do other students of bilingualism, Wei has main- A discussion of specific problems and the ways
tained that, in bilingualism studies, issues such they can be approached from the perspective of
as the bilinguality and ethnic origin of the re- different areas of inquiry can lead to a better un-
searcher, the researcher's attitude toward bilin- derstanding of what it means to generate theoret-
gualism, the definition of language used by the "re- ical knowledge and to contribute to educational
searcher, the research agenda of the researcher, practice.
and his or her choice of appropriate methods for
answering particular research questions are of key CONCLUSION
importance in obtaining valid results.
Expanding the investigation of instructed lan- In this article, I have called for the reconceptu-
guage acquisition beyond L2 learners to include alization and expansion of the field of SLA by us-
L1/L2 users will also involve a rethinking of partic- ing the teaching of heritage languages to L1/L2
ipant selection. Bilingual individuals do not con- users as a lens through which such a reconcep-
stitute a homogeneous group and thus cannot be tualization and expansion might be envisioned.
grouped together by SLA researchers without risk- I maintain that in taking seriously the questions
ing the almost immediate dismissal of the research raised by the teaching of a nondominant Li, SLA
by students of bilingualism. Citing Grosjean can position itself to respond to criticisms leveled
(1998), Wei (2000) pointed out that in choosing at it because of its seeming narrowness and exclu-
bilingual speakers in research the following fac- sive preoccupation with L2s from the perspective
tors should be considered: (a) language history of cognitive psychology. I also maintain that the
and language relationship, (b) language stability, most difficult problems in education today involve
(c) functions of languages, (d) language profi- issues of language and groups of children who
ciency, (e) language modes, and (f) biographical are acquiring or are using the societal language
data. while at the same time interacting with family and
Finally, moving beyond the monolingual norm community members who speak a heritage lan-
must involve the rejection of the standard mono- guage. The expansion of SLA to the study and
Guadalupe Valds 423
examination not only of the acquisition of L2, but in contributing to the study of heritage language
also of Li development in minority populations, learning cannot afford to ignore the multilayered
LI reacquisition, D2 acquisition, and R2 acquisi- set of themes that contribute directly to a version
tion has much to offer both to the theory and of reality within which monolingualism is viewed
the practice of instructed (rather than second) as the normal and ideal human condition and
language acquisition. There is much that the study bilingualism is viewed as profoundly suspect.
of LI/L2 users can contribute to our understand- A discussion of research goals and social re-
ing of the human language faculty. Sdsnchez and sponsibility cannot take place, moreover, if there
Toribio (2003), for example, provided an excel- is little knowledge about the most challenging
lent overview of the theoretical understandings issues and problems that arise in various edu-
that can be drawn from the study of bilingual cational contexts or about the most vulnerable
speakers, including: characteristics of native lan- groups of L2 learners and L1/L2 users. Given
guage decline, identification of formal features re- the boundaries between areas and fields, few SLA
sistant to deterioration, differences between faulty researchers have engaged in the extensive study
morphology in production and impairments in of minority language issues beginning with lan-
the interpretation of aspect, permeability of Li guage policy and planning and including the ex-
grammars, and the structure of unconscious ab- amination of social, political, and economic con-
stract linguistic knowledge as viewed through the texts in which language education takes place. A
use ofgrammaticalityjudgments of code-switched reading of the critical language researchers (e.g.,
forms. Bhatt & Martin-Jones, 1992; Canagarajah, 1999,
Expanding SLA to engage in the study of the 2002; Corson, 1997; Fairclough, 1989; Pennycook,
possible results of Li instruction for students 1994; Tollefson, 1991; Wallace, 1992) offers one
who have already acquired some competence in perspective on such contexts as does work in the
this language bridges the distance between lan- area of linguistic human rights (Skutnabb-Kangas,
guage education and a research field. Experi- 2000; and Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1995).
ence in attempting to teach the LI to speak- The possibility of conceptualizing SLA so that
ers who use the language in their everyday lives it brings together researchers from various com-
raises key questions that directly complement in- munities of practice is an exciting one. It is par-
terests in L2 acquisition that have shaped the field. ticularly exciting because of the possible impact
These questions include variability in learner lan- that such a community might have on important
guage, the significance of learner error, the im- language education issues and on what I have
pact of input and interaction, language trans- called the most intractable problems facing mi-
fer, the characteristics of learner systems at dif- nority youngsters in American schools. I am con-
ferent points in the acquisition/reacquisition/ vinced not only that SLA researchers have a par-
development process and, perhaps most impor- ticular expertise that can contribute in important
tant, the impact of formal instruction on the reac- ways to the solution of language problems that
quisition/development of language. affect the lives of minority children all over the
Because language occupies a central position world, but also that the presentation of even con-
in education, there is a need to address instruc- tradictory research claims can inform important
tional language problems in ways that can make policy decisions. In California, for example, the
a difference in the lives of children who have not proponents of Proposition 227, the antibilingual
been served well by existing educational institu- education initiative, claimed that after 1 year of
tions. Societal needs in the area of language are English instruction in a classroom of multi-aged
pressing. However, as Pennycook (1994) pointed children, these students would be ready for an
out, schools are not "sites where a neutral body all-English academic curriculum. The opponents
of curricular knowledge is passed on to students," of the initiative, including SLA researchers of the
but rather "cultural and political arenas within stature of Kenji Hakuta, considered it essential to
which various political, cultural, and social forms engage in the debate and try to bring reason to a
are engaged in constant struggle" (p. 297). Ideo- politically charged anti-immigrant movement.
logical contexts are very much a part of the stu- As was made evident by the recent Ebonics con-
dents' success and failure in the acquisition, reac- troversy (Baugh, 2000), the opinions of university
quisition, and development of both LUs and L2s. researchers and scholars often become very much
A mapping (Wetherell & Potter, 1992) of both a part of national debates on issues in which the
the popular and the scholarly discourse on bilin- public has strong interest. The public's stereo-
gualism is beyond the scope of this article, but typical view of the isolation of scholars in their
researchers in instructed SLA who are interested "ivory towers" and the perceived irrelevancy of
424 The Modern LanguageJournal 89 (2005)

their opinions to public debates has given way

to a view in which scholarly "experts" have taken REFERENCES
on the role of providing information and back-
ground to the courts, media organizations, and American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Por-
the public in general. As members of profes- tuguese. (2000). Spanish for native speakers. Profes-
sional media organizations work to provide both sional development series handbook for teachers K-16.
background for their audiences and a balance Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Lan-
of differing opinions, they seek out scholars who
guages. (1996). Standardsforforeign languagelearn-
will present their views and participate in what
ing; Preparingfor the 21st century. Yonkers, NY: Na-
Tannen (1998) called the "argument culture."
tional Standards in Education Project.
Scholars are expected not only to engage in a dis- Anderson, R. W. (1982). Determining the linguistic at-
cussion of the complexity of the issues, but also to tributes of language attrition. In R. D. Lambert &
expand the public's understanding of problems B. F. Freed (Eds.), The loss of languageskills (pp.
of enormous significance. For the field of SLA, 83-118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
it is time to seize this opportunity to contribute Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach
directly to a broader understanding of language. to second language acquisition. Modern Language
journal, 86, 525-545.
Baker, P. (1966). Espariol para los hispanos [Spanish for
Hispanics]. Skokie, IL: National Textbook.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Ballmer, T. T. (1981). A typology of native speak-
ers. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), A festschfift for native
speaker (pp. 51- 6 7 ). The Hague, The Netherlands:
I would like to express my appreciation to MLJ review- Mouton.
ers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of Barker, M. E. (1972). Espafiol para el bilingiie [Spanish
this article and to Lourdes Ortega, the editor of this spe- for the bilingual]. Skokie, IL: National Textbook.
cial issue, for her extraordinarily insightful suggestions. Baugh, J. (2000). Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic pride and
racialprejudice. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Bhatia, T. K., & Ritchie, W. C. (Eds.).(2004). The hand-
book of bilingualism. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
NOTES Bhatt, A., & Martin-Jones, M. (1992). Whose resource?
Minority language, bilingual learners and lan-
1Vald6s (1995) includes a definition of the term, lin- guage awareness. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical
guistic minority and a discussion of various perspectives language awareness (pp. 285-302). London: Long-
on these minorities around the world. The article also man.
includes a dated, but still useful, view of instruction of Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language ac-
minority languages as academic subjects. quisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
2 For an overview of the teaching of Spanish as a her- Press.
itage language see Valdhs (1995). This overview includes Campbell, R., & Christian, D. (2003). Directions
an examination of the key areas (e.g., the teaching of in research: Intergenerational transmission of
grammar, testing and assessment, the teaching of the heritage languages. Heritage Language Journal,
standard dialect) examined by both practitioners and l(1). Retrieved May 19, 2005, from http://
researchers. www.international.ucla.edu / lrc/ hlj / article.asp?
3 For a recent, thorough discussion of this topic, see parentid = 3893.
Han (2003). Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism
"4 Gutierrez (2003), for example, argued that, in Span- in English teaching. New York: Oxford University
ish, the innovative use of estar in domains previously oc- Press.
cupied by ser had its origin in a monolingual context but Canagarajah, S. (2002). Critical academic writing. Ann
is advancing at a faster rate in bilingual communities in Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
the United States. Clark, E. V. (2003). First languageacquisition. New York:
5 1 use the term Bakhtin Circle in the same way as Du- Cambridge University Press.
ranti and Goodwin (1992) and Moraes (1996) in order Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Lan-
to avoid the debate concerning the specific authorship guage Learning, 42, 557-591.
of the works ofVoloshinov and Medvedev that have been Cook, V. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism and
attributed to Bakhtin. cognitive processing. In A. M. B. de Groot & J.
6 Introductions to field of bilingualism include: Ro- F Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism:Psycholin-
maine (1995), Hamers and Blanc (2000), Wei (2000), guistic perspectives (pp. 279-299). Mahwah, NJ:
and Bhatia and Ritchie (2004). Wei's volume is orga- Erlbaum.
nized to illustrate the contributions of sociolinguistics, Cook, V (2002). Background of the L2 user. In V. Cook
linguistics, and psycholinguists to the study of bilingual- (Ed.), Portraitsof the L2 user (pp. 1-28). Clevedon,
ism and includes an excellent bibliography. UK: Multilingual Matters.
Guadalupe Valdis 425
Cook, V. (Ed.). (2003a). Effects of the second language on Han, Z. (2003). Fossilizationin adult second language ac-
thefirst. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. quisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. (2003b). Introduction: The changing LI in Haugen, E. (1970). On the meaning of bilingual com-
the L2 user's mind. In V. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the petence. In R. Jakobson & S. Kawamoto (Eds.),
second language on the first (pp. 1-18). Clevedon, Studies in general and Oriental linguistics: Pre-
UK: Multilingual Matters. sented to Shiro Hattori on the occasion of his sixti-
Corson, D. (1997). Social justice in the work of ESL eth birthday (pp. 221-229). Tokyo: TEC Company,
teachers. In W. Eggington & H. Wren (Eds.), Lan- Ltd.
guage policy: Dominant English, pluralist challenges Ingold, C., Rivers, W., Tesser, C. C., & Ashby, E. (2002).
(pp. 149-163). Amsterdam:John Benjamins. Report on the NFLC/AATSP survey of Spanish
Coulmas, F. (1981). A festschrift for native speaker. The language programs for native speakers. Hispania,
Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton. 85, 324-329.
Crookes, G. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy: A so- Johnson, M. (2004). A philosophy of second language ac-
cioeducational perspective. Studies in Second Lan- quisition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
guage Acquisition, 20, 93-116. Kenny, K. D. (1996). Language loss and the crisis of cog.
Davis, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. nition: Between socio- and psycholinguistics. Berlin,
Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Davis, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Kramsch, C. (1997). The privilege of the nonnative
Clevedon, UK- Multilingual Matters. speaker. PMLA, 112, 359-369.
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethink- Leung, C., Harris, R., & Rampton, B. (1997). The
ing context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. idealised native speaker, reified ethnicities and
New York: Cambridge University Press. classroom realities. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 543-
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: 560.
Longman. Moraes, M. (1996). Bilingual education: A dialogue with
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communi- the Bakhtin circle. Albany, NY: State University of
cation, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA New York Press.
research. Modern LanguageJournal,81, 285-300. MuIfwene, S. S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution.
Fishman,J. A. (1964). Language maintenance and lan- New York: Cambridge University Press.
guage shift as a field of inquiry. Linguistics, 9, 32- Muller, K E. (2002). Addressing counterterrorism: U.S.
70. literacy in languages and international affairs.
Fishman, J. A. (1985). Mother-tongue claiming in the Language Problems and Language Planning, 26, 1-
United States since 1960: Trends and correlates. 21.
In J. A. Fishman, M. H. Gertner, E. G. Lowy, & National Foreign Language Center. (n.d.). Recursospara
W. G. Milan (Eds.), The rise and fall of the ethnic la ensefanza y el aprendizaje de las culturas His-
revival: Perspectives on language and ethnicity (pp. panas [Resources for the teaching and learning of
107-194). Berlin, Germany: Mouton. Hispanic cultures]. Retrieved May 16, 2005, from
Fishman, J. A. (2001). 300-plus.years of heritage lan- http://www.nflc.org/REACH/
guage education in the United States. InJ. K. Pey- Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our re-
ton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage search? The ethical as transformative lens in in-
,languages in America: Preservinga nationalresource structed SLA. Modern LanguageJournal, 89, 427-
(pp. 81-97). Washington DC: Center for Applied 443.
Linguistics/Delta Systems. Penny, R. (2000). Variation and change in Spanish. New
Gee,J. (1990). Social linguisticsand literacies:Ideology in York: Cambridge University Press.
discourses. London: Falmer Press. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as
Gibbons, J., & Ramirez, E. (2004). Maintaininga mi- an internationallanguage. London: Longman.
nority language: A case study of Hispanic teenagers. Peyton, J. K, Ranard, D. A., & McGinnis, S. (Eds.).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. (2001). Heritage languages in America: Preservinga
Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent nationalresource. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems and
but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual Center for Applied Linguistics.
MulticulturalDevelopment, 6, 467-477. Rampton, B. (1997). Second language research in late
Grosjean, F. (1997). Processing mixed language: Issues modernity: A response to Firth and Wagner. Mod-
findings and models. In A. M. De Groot & J. F ern LanguageJournal, 81, 329-333.
Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism (pp. 225- Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism (2nd ed.). Malden,
254). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. MA: Blackwell.
Grosjean, F (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodologi- Sdnchez, L., & Toribio, A.J. (2003). Current issues in the
cal and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language generative study of Spanish second language syn-
and Cognition, 1, 131-149. tax. In B. A. Lafford & R. Salaberry (Eds.), Spanish
Gutierrez, M. J. (2003). Simplification and innovation second languageacquisition: State of the science (pp.
in U.S. Spanish. Multilingua, 22, 169-184. 189-232). Washington, DC: Georgetown Univer-
Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilinguality sity Press.
and bilingualism (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge Sharwood Smith, M. (1994). Second language learning:
University Press. Theoreticalfoundations.London: Longman.
426 The Modern LanguageJournal89 (2005)

Silva-Corvaldn, C. (1994). Language contact and change: Vald6s, G. (2000b). Teaching heritage languages: An
Spanish in Los Angeles. New York: Oxford Univer- introduction for Slavic-language-teaching profes-
sity Press. sionals. In 0. Kagan & B. Rifkin (Eds.), Learning
Silva-Corvalin, C. (2003a). Narrating in English and and teaching of Slavic languages and cultures (pp.
Spanish: Story telling in the words of a 5-year- 375-403). Bloomington, IN: Slavica.
old bilingual. Revista Internacionalde Lingiiistica Vald6s, G. (2001). Heritage languages students: Profiles
Iberoamericana,1(2), 35-58. and possibilities. InJ. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, &
Silva-CorvalAn, C. (2003b). El espafiol en Los Ange- S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritagelanguages in America:
les: Adquisici6n incompleta o desgaste lingiiistico Preserving a national resource (pp. 37-77). Wash-
[Spanish in Los Angeles: Incomplete acquisi- ington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics/Delta
tion or language attrition]? Retrieved Novem- Systems.
her 5, 2004, from http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/ Vald6s, G. (2003). Expanding definitions of giftedness:
espanol_eeuu/bilingue/csilva.htm Young interpreters of immigrant background. Mah-
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguisticgenocide in educa- wah, N]: Erlbaum.
tion or worldwide diversity and human rights. Mah- Vald6s, G. (2004). Between support and marginaliza-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum. tion: The development of academic language in
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (1995). Linguistic linguistic minority children. Bilingual Education
human rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination. and Bilingualism, 7(2 & 3), 102-132.
Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Vald6s, G., & Figueroa, R. A. (1994). Bilingualism and
Spolsky, B. (1978). Educationallinguistics. Rowley, MA: testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Newbury House. Vald6s, G., Fishman, J. A., Ch5vez, R., & P6rez, W.
Spolsky, B. (1990). Introduction to a colloquium: The (in press). The development of minority language re-
scope and form of a theory of second language sources:Lessons from the case of California.Clevedon,
learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 609-616. UK: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M., Dumas, G., & Naiman, N. (1974). Alternatives Vald6s, G., & Geoffrion-Vinci, M. (1998). Chicano Span-
to spontaneous speech: Elicited translation and ish: The problem of the "underdeveloped" code
imitation as indicators of second language compe- in bilingual repertoires. Modern Language Journal,
tence. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 3, 68-79. 82, 473-501.
Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture. NewYork: Ran- Vald6s, G., GonzAlez, S., Garcia, D. L., & Mhrquez, P.
dom House. (2003). Language ideology: The case of Spanish
Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language contact: An intro- in departments of foreign languages. Anthropology
duction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University and Education Quarterly, 34, 3-26.
Press. Vald6s, G., GonzAlez, S., Garcia, D. L., & MArquez, P. (in
Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language con- press). The challenges of maintaining non-English
tact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, languages through educational institutions. In D.
CA: University of California Press. M. Brinton & 0. Kagan (Eds.), Heritage language
Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning in- acquisition: A new field emerging (pp. 3-26). Mah-
equality: Languagepolicy in the community. London: wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Longman. Wallace, C. (1992). Critical literacy awareness in the
U.S. Census Bureau. (2003, October). Census 2000 brief: EFL classroom. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Criticallan-
Language use and English-language ability (No. guage awareness (pp. 59-92). London: Longman.
C2KBR-19). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bu- Wei, L. (2000). The bilingualism reader. London: Rout-
reau. ledge.
Vald6s, G. (1995). The teaching of minority languages Weinreich, U. (1974). Languages in contact. The Hague,
as "foreign" languages: Pedagogical and theoreti- The Netherlands: Mouton.
cal challenges. Modern Language journal, 79, 299- Wetherell, M., & Potter,j. (1992). Mapping the language
328. of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploita-
Valdhs, G. (2000a). Introduction. In N. Anderson (Ed.), tion. New York: Columbia University Press.
AATSP professional development series handbook for Wiley, T. G., & Vald6s, G. (2000). Heritage language
teachersK-16: Vol. 1. Spanishfornative speakers (pp. instruction in the United States [Special issue].
1-20). New York: Harcourt College. Bilingual ResearchJournal, 24(4).
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Bilingualism, Heritage Language Learners, and SLA

Research: Opportunities Lost or Seized?
SOURCE: Mod Lang J 89 no3 Aut 2005
WN: 0528801643009

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk

Copyright 1982-2005 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.