Bilingualism, Heritage LanguageLearners, and SLA Research:Opportunities Lost or Seized?GUADALUPE VALDESDepartment of Spanish and Portuguese

Stanford UniversityPigott Hall, Building 260

Stanford, CA 94305-2014Email: gvaldes@stanford.edu

In this article I invite a reconceptualization and expansion of the field of second languageacquisition (SLA) by examining possible intersections between SLA and the area of languageinstruction currently referred to as the teaching of heritage languages. I discuss the waysin 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 involvinglanguage. Drawing from current research on bilingualism, I first describe the challenges ofproviding language instruction for heritage speakers and examine the bilingualism of theseunique 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 existingdisciplinary boundaries and conclude with a discussion of the ways in which the field of SLAcan draw from other areas in order to affect the educational futures of language minoritychildren around the world and, at the same time, contribute to our greater understanding ofthe human language faculty.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TOinvite a reconceptualization and expansion ofthe field of second language acquisition (SLA)

by examining possible intersections between SLAand the area of language instruction currently re-ferred to as the teaching of heritage languages.

In proposing a reconceptualization of SLA, I amwell aware of the existing disagreement within thisfield about the relationship between SLA and lan-

guage pedagogy. Some researchers (e.g., Crookes,1997; Spolsky, 1990) consider that a relationship

between these two areas is fundamental, while oth-ers (e.g., Sharwood Smith, 1994) view SLA as en-

gaged in basic rather than applied research andin contributing, not to the teaching of language,

but to the understanding of the workings of thehuman mind while following the methodologicalstandards of quantitative-experimental scientific

The Modern Language Journal, 89, iii, (2005)0026-7902/05/410-426 $1.50/002005 The Modern Language Journal

inquiry. My own position concurs with the for-mer. I agree with Ortega's injunctions (this issue)about the role and purpose of research: (a) thatresearch should be inspired by considerations ofsocietal needs, and (b) that in carrying out re-search we should embrace with genuine concernquestions of "for whom" and "for what."

In proposing a reconceptualization of SLA, Iargue that an intersection between the area ofheritage language teaching and SLA respondsto Cook's (2002) proposal to researchers to al-ter the perspective of SLA by including secondlanguage (L2) users. I also suggest that a mean-ingful connection between these two areas wouldbegin to address recent criticisms about the nar-rowness of SLA (Block, 2003; Firth & Wagner,1997; Johnson, 2004) by focusing on the com-plexities of heritage language speakers withinwhose lives commonplace concepts such as mothertongue, first language, second language, dominant

language, and home language become problematic.

I maintain that the term Second Language Acqui-sition, as Block (2003) has argued, has "built-in

Guadalupe Valdis

assumptions about monolingualism and separa-ble Li [first language] and L2 competences"(p. 44). These assumptions have not allowed thefield to engage in the examination of instructedlanguage acquisition beyond L2 learners or toaddress the most challenging issues and prob-lems that arise in various educational contextsfor the most vulnerable minority language speak-ers around the world. A reconceptualized field ofSLA, as I envision it in this article, would exam-ine language learning in various language edu-cation contexts and view the language educationfield as going beyond beginning, intermediate,and advanced L2 instruction and as involving sev-eral types of language acquisition/developmentas well, such as acquisition of second dialects,acquisition of a standard language, acquisitionor development of specialized language registersand styles, and acquisition of written language. Istrongly believe that this reconceptualization hasthe potential to allow the field of SLA to addresstoday's most intractable educational problems in-voling language.

The article is organized as follows. I first de-scribe the challenges of providing language in-struction for heritage speakers and examine thebilingualism of these unique language learners. Indoing so, I draw on a bilingualist perspective of L2and heritage language acquisition that emergesfrom the study of bilingualism and has been advo-cated by some in SLA (notably, Cook, 1992, 2002).I argue, however, that the term L1/L2 user is a bet-ter choice than L2 user as a synonym for the her-itage language learner. I then offer an overview ofthe questions raised for the field of SLA by this par-ticular educational endeavor. Finally, I describecommunities of professional practice and exist-ing disciplinary boundaries and conclude with adiscussion of the ways in which the opportunityof broadening the field of SLA can be seized bycurrent researchers so that it can directly affectthe educational futures of language minority chil-dren around the world and, at the same time,contribute to our greater understanding of thehuman language faculty.

HERITAGE LANGUAGE SPEAKERS:PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION

In recent years, the term heritage language hasbeen used broadly to refer to nonsocietal andnonmajority languages spoken by groups oftenknown as linguistic minorities. Those membersof linguistic minorities who are concerned aboutthe study, maintenance, and revitalization of theirminority languages have been referred to as her-

411

itage language students. Such minorities includepopulations who are either indigenous to a par-ticular region of a present-day nation-state (e.g.,Aborigines in Australia, speakers of Breton inFrance, Kurds in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq) or pop-ulations that have migrated to areas other thantheir own regions or nations of origin (e.g., Mex-icans in the United States, Turks in Germany,Moroccans in Spain, Pakistanis in England). Mi-nority languages or heritage languages includeindigenous languages that are often endangeredand in danger of disappearing (Scots Gaelic,Maori, Rornani) as well as world languages thatare commonly spoken in many other regionsof the world (Spanish in the United States,Arabic in France).' Because these speakers mayacquire and use two or more languages in order tomeet their everyday communicative needs in suchsettings, they have been referred to as circumstan-tial bilinguals/multilinguals (Vald6s & Figueroa,1994) and contrasted with elite or elective bilin-guals/multilinguals who learn a L2 in classroomsettings and have few opportunities to use thelanguage for genuine communication. Circum-stantial bilingualism/multilingualism is generallycharacteristic of populations who occupy subal-tern positions in particular settings, whether theyare indigenous minorities in established nationstates (e.g., Bretons, Samis, Kurds) or other bor-der crossers such as migrants, refugees, nomads,and exiles.

As the work carried out by Fishman (1964,1985) has made evident, minority language com-munities in the United States have been deeplycommitted to maintaining their community lan-guages. In spite of strong assimilative pressures,these communities have nevertheless establishedlanguage programs (e.g., Saturday schools) wherechildren are expected to develop existing her-itage language proficiencies. Within the last fewyears, moreover, individuals concerned aboutthe erosion and disappearance of minority lan-guages have turned to educational institutionsin the hope that formal classroom instruction,by revitalizing and developing the home lan-guages of young speakers of indigenous andimmigrant languages, will be able to retard lan-guage shift. Fishman (2001) has argued that forthese individuals and communities it is the his-torical and personal connection to the heritagelanguage that is salient and not the actual profi-ciency of individual students. Armenian, for ex-ample, would be considered a heritage languagefor American students of Armenian ancestry evenif such students were themselves English-speakingmonolinguals. In terms of strengthening and

412

preserving Armenian in this country, such her-itage students would be seen as having an impor-tant personal connection with the language andan investment in maintaining the language for fu-ture generations. Their motivation for studyingArmenian would thus contrast significantly withthat of typical students of foreign language.

I have argued elsewhere (Vald&s, 2000a, 2000b,2001) that the foreign language teaching profes-sion currently uses the term heritage student in a re-stricted sense that is distinct from the broad senseof the term outlined above. In the foreign lan-guage teaching profession, the term designatesa student of language who is raised in a homewhere a non-English language is spoken. The stu-dent may speak or merely understand the her-itage language and be, to some degree, bilingualin English and the heritage language. This defini-tion is distinct from the scenario described abovewhere individuals work with endangered indige-nous or immigrant languages that are not regu-larly taught in school (e.g., as in the case of Ar-menian). This difference has to do with actuallydeveloped functional proficiencies in the heritagelanguages. Moreover, for foreign language teach-ing professionals, the term refers to a groupý ofyoung people who are different in important waysfrom English-speaking monolingual students whohave traditionally undertaken the study of foreignlanguages in U.S. schools and colleges. This needto distinguish between the two groups of studentsarose in the Spanish-teaching profession duringthe 1970s. At that time, the terms native speak-ers of Spanish, quasi native speakers of Spanish, andbilingual students were common. A dissatisfactionwith these labels led to increased use of otherterms such as home background speakers (as used inAustralia) and heritage language speakers (as usedin Canada). Members of the profession in theUnited States are currently engaged in examin-ing the use of the term heritage language studentas they research the various types of students whohave a family background in which a non-Englishlanguage is, or was, spoken.

LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION AND HERITAGESPEAKERS IN THE UNITED STATES

The use of the term heritage student in therestricted sense adopted within the foreign lan-guage teaching profession is relatively new, andits use was not generalized until the publicationof the Standards for Foreign Language Learning

(ACTFL, 1996). Up to that time, Spanish instruc-tors were the only members of the foreign lan-guage teaching profession who had worked with

The Modern Language Journal 89 (2005)

large numbers of students who already under-stood and spoke the language that they taught.They had been doing so since the early 1970s, inresponse to increasingly large numbers of Span-ish heritage students who turned to already ex-isting foreign language programs in language de-partments at the postsecondary level in the hopeof developing their home languages. The largenumber of Spanish speakers entering the coun-try undoubtedly was part of the trend that signif-icantly affected the Spanish-teaching profession.College-and university-level faculty who had expe-rience in teaching Spanish as a foreign languageopened their doors to students who, in some cases,were more fluent in the language than they were,but who could not talk about the language us-ing the terminology used in the teaching of tradi-tional grammar. Individuals involved in teachingSpanish to such students in the classroom settingquickly discovered that these young people had avery difficult time learning grammar rules taughtto foreign language students. Not only did theybecome confused by explanations of aspects ofthe language that they already knew (e.g., thedifference between ser and estar), but they alsorefused to confine themselves to the limited vo-cabulary of the textbook. Because many Latinostudents who entered college had been schooledexclusively in English, they had no experiencein reading and writing in Spanish. Worst of all-from the perspective of some faculty-they wereoften speakers of stigmatized varieties of Spanish(e.g., rural Mexican Spanish, rural Puerto RicanSpanish). There were no textbooks on the marketthat could adequately deal with the "problem,"and there was little agreement among Spanish-teaching professionals (most of whom had beentrained in literature) about what to do and how todo it. The consensus, reflected in the textbooksof that period (e.g., Baker, 1966; Barker, 1972),was that bilingual hispanophone students were inneed of remediation, of techniques and pedago-gies that would help undo the damage that hadbeen done at home.2 The terms used during thoseyears by the Spanish-teaching profession to referto these students-native speakers of Spanish, quasi

native speakers of Spanish, or bilingual students-reflected this deficit orientation. As mentionedearlier, with time, other more positive terms suchas home background speakers and heritage language

speakers gained currency.Since the early 1970s, the teaching of com-

monly and uncommonly taught foreign lan-guages has greatly expanded. Interest in heritagestudents and improvements in educational ap-proaches and resources began in the late 1990s

Guadalupe Valdes

and continue today. Increased attention to therole of formal instruction in maintaining heritagelanguages has come about as a consequence ofthe events of September llth, which brought tothe nation's attention the strategic importanceof "foreign" languages. As a result, the intelli-gence and military communities (Muller, 2002)have expressed a growing interest in expandingthe nation's linguistic resources by both teach-ing non-English languages and by maintainingthe heritage or home languages of the 47 mil-lion individuals who reported speaking both En-glish and a non-English language in the latestcensus in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Formany individuals concerned about language re-sources, the development of strategic languagescan only be brought about by expanding the mis-sion of foreign language departments to includethe maintenance and expansion of the varietiesof non-English languages currently spoken by im-migrants, refuigees, and their children.

Professional activities focusing on the teach-ing of heritage languages have increased enor-mously. The American Association of Teachersof Spanish and Portuguese (AATSP) initiatedits Professional Development Series Handbooks forTeachers K-16 with Volume 1: Spanish for Na-

tive Speakers (AATSP, 2000). The National For-eign Language Center (NFLC) in cooperationwith the AATSP developed a language-based re-source, Recursos para la Ensefianza y el Apren-dizaje de las Culturas Hispanas, known as REACH(http://www.nflc.org/REACH/), for teachers ofSpanish to heritage speakers. The NFLC alsodeveloped LangNet, a searchable database thatincludes Spanish and contains numerous re-sources for the teaching of heritage languages.In collaboration with the AATSP, the NFLCalso conducted a survey of Spanish languageprograms for native speakers (Ingold, Rivers,Tesser, & Ashby, 2002). The Center for Ap-plied Linguistics and the NFLC launched theAlliance for the Advancement of Heritage Lan-guages (http://www.cal.org/heritage/). The Al-liance sponsored two national conferences, in1999 and 2002, on the teaching of heritage lan-guages in which many members of the Spanish-teaching profession participated. The first con-ference led to the publication of the volume Her-itage Languages in America (Peyton, Ranard, &McGinnis, 2001), in which much attention wasgiven to the teaching of uncommonly taught lan-guages, and also to the publication of a specialissue of the Bilingual Research Journal focusing onheritage languages (Wiley & Vald6s, 2000). Thesecond conference led to the publication of a re-

413

port on research priorities on the teaching of her-itage languages entitled Directions in Research: In-tergenerational Transmission of Heritage Languages(Campbell & Christian, 2003).

THE BILINGUALISM OF AMERICANHERITAGE LANGUAGE STUDENTS

American heritage language students includechildren of native American background, foreign-born immigrants who came to the United States ata young age, the native-born children of foreign-born immigrants, and occasionally the native-born children of native-born individuals of immi-grant background. The experiences of these her-itage speakers are similar. They speak or hear theheritage language spoken at home and in theirimmediate communities, but, with few exceptions(e.g., Foreign Language Elementary School pro-grams, Bilingual Education), they receive theirformal education entirely in English. They receiveno instruction in the heritage language during theelementary or secondary grades and, as a result,become literate only in English.

Heritage Learners as L1/L2 Users

In the last several years, Vivian Cook, a verydistinguished researcher in the area of SLA, hasmade a strong case for the study of what he refersto as multicompetence (Cook, 1992, 2002). He hasargued that it is of particular importance for theSLA field to engage in the study of the L2 user anindividual who has knowledge of and uses a L2,rather than to engage in the exclusive study of theL2 learner, an individual whose task of acquisitionis seen as not yet finished. Drawing from researchon bilingualism, he has pointed out, moreover,that L2 users are, by definition, different frommonolingual speakers. Rejecting the view that theultimate state of L2 learning is to pass undetectedamong native speakers, Cook (2002) emphasizedthat "the minds, languages and lives of L2 usersare different from those of monolinguals," andthat "L2 users are not failures because they are dif-ferent" (p. 9). In suggesting the term L2 user andrejecting the designation bilingual, Cook (2002)pointed out that the term has "contradictory defi-nitions and associations in both popular and aca-demic usage" (p. 4).

Although I do not disagree with Cook aboutthe contradictory definitions of the term bilin-gual, I nevertheless argue that the term L2 useris not entirely appropriate for the description ofheritage language learners who may, at differentpoints in their lives, exhibit various degrees of

414

language expertise and language affiliation inspite of their language inheritance (Leung,Harris, & Rampton, 1997; Rampton, 1997). Eventhough the term L2 user implies the continueduse of the Li, and even though recent work on L2users (Cook, 2003a) is clearly concerned aboutthe relationship of the LI to the L2 and of the L2to the LI, it is my position that the term L2 user stilltends to emphasize and focus attention primarilyon the L2. In this article, I therefore use the termL1/L2 user interchangeably with heritage studentto describe heritage learners, many of whom ac-quire the L2 in a combination of naturalistic andinstructed settings.

The L1/L2 User Continuum

Although absolutely equivalent abilities in twolanguages are theoretically possible, except, forrare geographical and familial accidents, individ-uals seldom have access to two languages in ex-actly the same contexts in every domain of inter-action. L1/L2 users do not have the opportunityto use two languages to carry out the exact samefunctions with all individuals with whom they in-teract or to use their languages intellectually tothe same degree. They thus do not develop iden-tical strengths in both languages. Heritage L1/L2users are bilingual individuals who manifest verydifferent strengths in their two languages and whomay best be thought of as falling along a contin-uum of different types of bilinguals such as thatpresented in Figure 1.

In Figure 1, different size fonts indicate differ-ent language strengths in language A and lan-guage B for different L1/L2 users. A recentlyarrived immigrant, for example, might be repre-sented as Ab (dominant in the immigrant lan-guage and in the beginning stages of learningEnglish). Similarly, a fourth-generation L1/L2user could be represented as Ba (having acquiredEnglish as a LI, dominant in English, and stillretaining some proficiency in the immigrant lan-guage). In minority language communities all

The Modern Language Journal 89 (2005)

over the world, such different types of Ll/L2 userslive together and interact with each other and withmonolinguals on a daily basis, using one or theother of their two languages. L1/L2 users will fluc-tuate in their preference or perceived strengths ineach language, depending on the nature of the in-teraction, the topic of discussion, the domain ofactivity, and the formality or the informality of thesituation.

Heritage Learners (L1/L2 Users) as Speakers ofContact Varieties of Language

L1/L2 users are speakers of what is known inthe field of bilingualism and sociolinguistics ascontact varieties of language. Languages are saidto be in contact (Weinreich, 1974) when they areused alternately by the same speakers to engagein communication. A Singaporean youngster, forexample, who uses Chinese at home, Englishin school, Malay in the market place, and bothChinese and English with his same-age friends,lives in a setting in which Malay, English, andChinese are in contact. The young speaker him-self is considered to be the locus of languagecontact.

Contact varieties of language have developedin very different types of settings all over theworld, most frequently as a result of a socio-historical background involving nation-building,conquest, colonization, and immigration. Exam-ples include the so-called New Englishes spokenaround the world in postcolonial settings (e.g., In-dian English); the varieties of Spanish spoken byQuechua, Aymara, and Maya bilinguals in LatinAmerica; as well as Canadian French; LouisianaFrench; Chicano English; and varieties of U.S.Spanish. In the United States, all non-English lan-guages spoken by indigenous or immigrant mi-norities as well as by political refugees, exiles, andprofessional elites are in contact with English inthat these non-English languages are used alter-nately with English by the same speakers. As isthe case with all languages in contact-depending

FIGURE 1A Continuum of L1/L2 Users

Monolingual Monolingual

A AbAbAbAbAb AB aB aB Ba BaBaBaB. B

Guadalupe Valdes

on a variety of social factors-the results of suchcontact may include language shift (the abandon-ment of the regular use of the non-English lan-guage) as well as development of ways of speakingthat are different from those used by monolingualspeakers in countries of origin. In such settings,bilingual individuals develop a special bilingualcommunication mode (Grosjean, 1997), used pri-marily with other bilinguals, that is character-ized by widespread borrowing of lexical items aswell as by code-switching, the alternating use oftwo languages at word, phrase, or clause levels.Over time, contact varieties of language are oftencharacterized by loss, addition, and replacementof linguistic features.

The Knowledge Systems of L1/L2 Users: ABilingualist Perspective

By definition, L1/L2 users have internalizedtwo implicit linguistic knowledge systems, one ineach of their languages. Whether they acquiredthe societal language and the heritage languagesimultaneously As infants or sequentially as youngchildren or as adolescents, L1/L2 users utilizetheir two languages on an everyday basis with in-terlocutors who are both monolingual in each oftheir two languages as well as bilingual in both lan-guages. Moreover, as GrosJean (1985) and Cook(1997) have argued, L1/L2 users are not twomonolinguals in one, but rather specific speaker-hearers who have acquired their two languagesin particular contexts and for particular reasons.Viewed from a bilingualist rather than a mono-lingualist perspective, L1/L2 users have acquiredtwo knowledge systems that they use in order carryout their particular communicative needs, needsthat may be quite unlike those of monolingualnative speakers who use a single language in allcommunicative interactions.

Also arguing for a bilingualist perspective onL1/L2 users, Grosjean (1997) contended that, atany given moment, bilinguals are in states of acti-vation of their languages and language processingmechanisms that are either monolingual or bilin-gual. Depending on the base language used andthe interlocutors involved, a L1/L2 user will beeither in (a) a monolingual mode in language A,(b) a monolingual mode in language B, or (c) abilingual mode. While the language user is in oneor the other of the monolingual modes, the otherlanguage is deactivated to some extent and trans-fer between the two languages is reduced. Whilethe speaker is in the bilingual mode, however, be-cause both languages are active, transfer betweenthe two languages as well as the tendency to code-

415

switch is evident to a greater degree. Grosjeanargued that, since language behavior in differentmodes most probably reflects how bilinguals pro-cess their two languages, research on bilingualcompetence and performance must take into ac-count language mode.

The notion of the native speaker-especially asapplied to bilingual individuals-is neither sim-ple, obvious, nor straightforward (Davis, 1991,2003). From some perspectives (e.g., Coulmas,1981), potential informants can only be speakers"whose first language it is" (p. 4). According tothis view, there is a qualitative difference betweena Li and a L2. Other students of the concept of na-tive speaker take an even more extreme position.Ballmer (1981), for example, argued that bilin-gual individuals are not native speakers of eitherof their languages. According to Kramsch (1997),"originally, native speakership was viewed as an un-controversial privilege of birth. Those who wereborn into a language were considered its nativespeakers, with grammatical intuitions that non-native speakers did not have" (p. 363). Kramschargued that a close examination of the conceptreveals that it has often been linked to social classand to education. She maintained that the native-speaker norm that has been recognized by for-eign language departments in the United States,for example, is that of "the middle-class, ethni-cally dominant male citizenry of nation-states" (p.363). By implication, the language of non-middle-class citizens of such nations has been consideredsuspect.

Taking a slightly different perspective, Haugen(1970) contended that the native-speaker norm,even as a popular concept, is difficult to apply tomost bilinguals:

To be natively competent in two languages wouldthen mean to have had two childhoods, so that allthe joys and frustrations of the fundamental periodof life could penetrate one's emotional response tothe simple words of the language. It would mean tohave acquired the skills of reading and writing thatgo with two separate educational systems such as allliterate societies now impose on their adolescents, orthe corresponding rigorous forms of initiation andskill development that formed part of all nonliteratesocieties. It would mean to have two different identi-ties, one looking at the world from one point of view,the other from another: it would mean sharing in thesocial forms, prejudices, and insights of two cultures.In short, it would mean being two entirely differentpeople. (p. 225)

More important, is it perhaps not the case thatall monolingual native speakers would be success-ful if measured against the norm of the educated

416

native speaker? It thus makes little sense to, usea monolingual native-speaker norm to evaliratethe competence of L1/L2 users. As Cook (1997)has argued, it is not clear why we should "evercompare two types of people in terms of a book-keeping exercise of profit and loss" (p. 294).

QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE STUDY OFL1/L2 USERS

The greatest challenge facing the foreign lan-guage profession in teaching Ll/L2 users whoelect to maintain or develop their LI in formal in-structional settings is the design of instruction thatis not only appropriate for their current and fu-ture needs but that is also based on coherent the-ories of instructed language acquisition for theseparticular groups of learners. Ideally, pedagogi-cal approaches designed for L1/L2 users wouldbe based on an understanding of the implicit lin-guistic knowledge systems of these learners andon a familiarity with the processes involved whenspeakers of such nondominant first languages at-tempt to develop or re-acquire these languagesin formal instructional settings. At present,' al-though we have some knowledge of the role ofinstruction in restructuring the interlanguages ofL2 learners, 3 we have no information about therole of formal instruction in restructuring or re-shaping the knowledge systems of learners Whoare in many ways quite different from traditionalclassroom learners.

Identifying Key Differences among L1/L2 Users

Given the complexity of the bilingual experi-ence and the fact that there are few L1/L2 userswho are ambilingual, we can hypothesize thatthere are important differences in the implicitlinguistic knowledge systems of various types ofL1/L2 users who are grouped under the labelheritage speakers in an academic context. A !re-search agenda designed to support theories of thedevelopment/reacquisition of heritage languagesthat are acquired as Lls by these users, therefore,would need to begin by developing proceduresfor examining similarities and differences amo!ngindividual heritage speakers of the same languageas well as between categories of heritage speakersof different languages. These procedures wouldbe directed to the development of typologies ofheritage speakers that are potentially importantfor classroom instruction. What are needed aretypologies that go beyond the traditional genera-tional categorizations (first, second, third gener-ation) of immigrant speakers commonly used in

The Modern Language Journal 89 (2005)

sociolinguistic research as well as beyond othercategorizations that have focused on recency ofarrival, schooling, and access to the standard lan-guage (e.g., Valdýs, 1995). For pedagogical pur-poses, useful classifications should be able to pro--vide information about the linguistic proficienciesof L1/L2 users, the characteristics of their under-lying implicit knowledge systems, and the differ-ences among L1/L2 users of the same generationand background.

In order to provide adequate instruction forL1/L2 users, it is important to determine not onlyspeaking fluency in general, but also the numberof registers and varieties that speakers can pro-duce and understand as well as their levels of lit-eracy in the heritage language. Fine-grained cat-egorizations are a necessary preliminary to thedetailed study of both inter- and intraheritagelearner variation in the various subsystems oftheir nondominant language. Assessment proce-dures are needed that adapt or draw directly frommethodologies used in the study of fossilizationin L2 learners (Han, 2003) and that include oraland written proficiency tests, dialect- and register-sensitive cloze procedures (Gibbons & Ramirez,2004), and grammaticality or acceptability judg-ments. A focus on the linguistic forms frequentlyexamined by L2 researchers might be especiallyuseful in comparing L1/L2 users with L2 learnersand in examining the role of instruction in the de-velopment/reacquisition of heritage languages inclassroom contexts.

Identifying the Communal Language

It is clear that, in order to understand theknowledge systems of L1/L2 users, an analyticalmodel is needed that is capable not only of "trac-ing changes in relative LI competence over time,after immigrants have arrived in the L2 environ-ment" (Kenny, 1996, p. 6), but also of providinginformation about what Mufwene (2001) referredto as the communal language to which they havebeen exposed as well as the I-Language (an indi-vidual speaker's idiolect). A speaker who has beenraised in a community within which the commu-nal language is a contact variety of that language,for example, will produce speech that may appearflawed from the perspective of an urban or pres-tige monolingual variety. Such seemingly flawedspeech, however, might nevertheless be gener-ated by a fully acquired linguistic system that hasnot undergone attrition. As Kenny (1996) argued,in understanding language loss or attrition, re-searchers must go beyond a structural approachthat is limited to the identification and analysis of

Guadalupe Valdes

linguistic elements that appear to be either dif-ferent or missing when compared to the speechof normative Li speakers. In immigrant commu-nities, the various incoming varieties of the her-itage language may have converged to produce anew dialect through processes involving accom-modation, the development of interdialectalisms,leveling, and simplification (Penny, 2000). The re-sulting communal language may have undergonea series of both downward and upward changesthrough the imitation of both the features usedby high prestige speakers as well as features usedby less privileged speakers who nevertheless en-joy covert prestige. Features that were stigma-tized in the original home country, for example,may spread among speakers who need particular"street credibility" (Penny, 2000, p. 69). In addi-tion, moreover, through its contact with the domi-nant language, the communal language may havealso undergone contact-induced language change(Thomason, 2001; Thomason & Kaufman, 1988)through lexical and structural borrowing. Finally,changes may have taken place in the communallanguage that, while originating in the monolin-gual environment, may have been accelerated be-cause of contact with the dominant language.4

TOWARDS A THEORY OF HERITAGELANGUAGE REACQUISITION/DEVELOPMENT

Briefly stated, the real world problem in thecase of LI/L2 users who elect to study their Liformally is designing instruction that is appropri-ate to their current and future needs and goals. Inorder to design appropriate instruction, it is nec-essary to determine which students-by formallystudying their LI-are involved in one or more ofthe following processes: (a) acquisition of incom-pletely acquired features of the LI as a "second"language, (b) first language (re-)acquisition in-volving the acquisition of features that have under-gone attrition, (c) acquisition of a second dialect(D2 acquisition), (d) development of discourseskills in the written and oral language includingthe acquisition of formal registers and styles (R2acquisition) and literacy, and (e) expansion of re-ceptive proficiencies into productive grammars.

Incomplete Acquisition of the Heritage Language

Some heritage speakers seeking formal instruc-tion in their Li may have incompletely acquiredsome features of the language. In her work onthe Spanish of Los Angeles, for example, Silva-Corvaldin (1994, 2003a, 2003b) reported on theSpanish of young children in Los Angeles who

417

at school age had not yet acquired the completetense, aspect, and mood system of Spanish. Ex-planations she considered include (a) the limitedaccess to Spanish language input, given that in LosAngeles the use of Spanish in the home appearsto be much less frequent among both second-and third-generation speakers than among first-generation speakers; and (b) the extended, in-tensive contact with the societal language in theschool context, which appears to interrupt thenormal process of Li acquisition in later child-hood. Heritage language children move throughthe same stages of acquisition at an early stage asdo youngsters in monolingual settings, althoughat possibly a different rate and, once the L2 be-comes dominant, their use of the Li decreasessignificantly. Silva-Corvaldsn argued that, withoutLl-based school support, such children would notcompletely acquire the linguistic system of the lan-guage as used by normative Li speakers.

The use of a simplified verb system (as well asthe uneven control of the heritage language of-ten made evident by the constant use of pauses,hesitations, and fillers) may not, however, indicatethat the language has been incompletely acquiredby a heritage speaker. What will not be immedi-ately clear from superficial assessments is whetherflawed production is due to interrupted acquisi-tion, individual language attrition, or "full" acqui-sition of a contact variety of the heritage languagethat is now quite different from the varieties ofthe heritage language originally brought to thecommunity.

A theory of instruction supporting the devel-opment/reacquisition of a nondominant LI forsuch learners will require an understanding ofhow and whether the implicit systems of speak-ers who have incompletely acquired the heritagelanguage, speakers whose heritage language hasundergone attrition, and speakers of a heritagelanguage that has undergone extensive changeare alike or different. What needs to be exploredis how these different systems-if indeed they aredifferent-might be reshaped by formal instruc-tion. In the case of incomplete acquisition, the in-structional problem to be solved might involve, forexample, the full acquisition of tense, aspect, andmood in the L1. Instructional approaches might,therefore, include L2 methodologies used in theteaching of both the oral and written language toL2 learners.

Reacquisition of Features after Attrition

In the case of language attrition (the ero-sion, decay, contraction, or obsolescence of a lan-guage), the process of reacquisition might be

418

quite different. Much attention, therefore, mustbe given to the study of suspected language attri-tion among heritage learners. What needs toibeunderstood is both the process and the speed ofattrition in individuals who are members of par-ticular communities as well as the subsystems thatundergo attrition. In a foundational article on lan-

guage attrition, Anderson (1982) argued that lan-guage attrition researchers must take into account

comprehension and production, uses of both oraland written language, traditional linguistic levels(i.e., phonology, morphology, syntax) as well asfunctions, domains of use, and discourse com-petencies of the speakers in question. Andersonmaintained that for each linguistic feature exam-ined, researchers must have what he terms a base-line comparison (p. 85); that is, they must have two

types of normative data: (a) the normal use of par-ticular features by fully competent speakers, and(b) the use of the features by the individuals beingstudied before they underwent language attrition.Anderson emphasized that a distinction must bemade between dysfunctional attrition, which causesa reduction in communication, and cosmetic attri-tion, which involves the reduction of features thatare socially valued but which does not interferewith communication.

Unfortunately, diagnosing attrition and distin-guishing attrition from incomplete acquisition aswell as from full acquisition of a contact varietyof a language on the basis of language assessmentprocedures is not simple. The same features listed

by Anderson to signal attrition (use of analyticvs. synthetic structures, use of lexical borrowings,

convergence of syntactic form, cognate transfer,literal translation) could be indicative of all three

types of conditions. In the case of language attri-tion, the goal of instruction is either reacquisitionof the subsystems that have undergone attrition,or the reversal of ongoing attrition of particular

subsystems and features, or both. One can conjec-ture that if attrition is caused by a removal from"the type and quantity of linguistic input and lin-guistic interaction necessary to maintain the fulllexical, phonological, morphological, and syntac-tic distinctions that are made by fluent compe-

tent speakers of this language" (Anderson, 1982,p. 91), reversal of attrition would need to in-volve rich input and intensive interaction typical

of monolingual linguistic environments. Withoutevidence to the contraryý one could not concludethat direct forms or form-focused instruction orother typical pedagogies used in L2 instructionwould be particularly beneficial in the process ofreacquisition or reversal of attrition. This is, how-ever, an empirical question, and one that can only

The Modern Language Journal 89 (2005)

be answered by examining the effects of differenttypes of instruction designed to reverse attritionin a category of students who have been carefullyidentified as having undergone attrition in theirheritage language.

Instruction for Heritage Speakers of Contact Varieties:D2 and R2 Acquisition

For the L1/L2 user who has fully acquired acommunal language that has undergone exten-sive changes through its contact with other vari-eties of the same language and with the dominantlanguage, the instructional problem to be solvedis quite different. If the goal is for such speak-ers to acquire the normative monolingual varietythrough formal instruction, what needs to be un-derstood is the process of D2 acquisition. TheseL1/L2 users are not involved in acquiring partsof a system that they have incompletely acquired,nor are they involved in reacquiring subsystemsthat have been lost. In this case, heritage speakersare involved in acquiring an additional variety ofthe same language. What they must learn is whichfeatures of the communal language correspondto the features of the normative monolingual va-rieties of the language and which features do not.A possible theory of D2 acquisition, for example,might parallel theories of L2 acquisition and pro-pose that in acquiring D2s, learners move througha set of interdialect grammars until they reachthe desired end state. In addition, if the goal ofheritage language instruction is also for these D2learners to develop reading and writing skills, lit-eracy instruction would ideally be based on anunderstanding of the differences and similaritiesbetween literacy acquisition in a D2 and literacyacquisition in both a Li and a L2.

If the goal of heritage language instruction forL1/L2 users who are acquiring a D2 is also forthem to extend their repertoires to include stylesand registers of the heritage language appropriatefor communicating in academic or professionalsettings, instruction must be based on an under-standing of the acquisition of additional registersby monolingual speakers who have not had ac-cess to contexts in which these particular registersare used. The instructional goal to be achieved inthis case is the acquisition of additional registers(R2 acquisition), that is, a set of discourse prac-tices that are directly tied to values and normsof a particular social group (Gee, 1990). As Geealso pointed out, however, particular discoursepractices are difficult to acquire in classroom set-tings because learners may have little or no accessto speakers who use these particular specialized

Guadalupe Valdis

registers. In attempting to add such higher reg-isters of their heritage language to their reper-toires, L1/L2 users may attempt to produce theseregisters by transferring and adapting features ofsimilar registers from their L2. A possible theoryof R2 acquisition might, therefore, parallel theo-ries of L2 and D2 acquisition and propose, as didVald6s and Geoffrion-Vinci (1998), that in acquir-ing second or additional registers, learners movethrough a set of interregisters until they reachthe desired end state. Clearly; in order to developadequate and effective instruction for heritagelearners whose goal it is to acquire additional vari-eties and registers of the heritage language, care-ful research must be carried out on the processof D2 and R2 acquisition in naturalistic settings aswell as on the effects of different types of instruc-tion on both of these processes.

Receptive and Productive Grammars

A final category of heritage speakers includesL1/L2 users who cannot or will not speak the her-itage language although they are able to partici-pate in interpersonal, face-to-face communicationwith bilingual individuals who speak to them inthis language. These passive L1/L2 users exhibitstrong receptive proficiencies in their heritagelanguage, which, although limited, still exceedthe receptive proficiencies acquired by beginningand even intermediate learners of a foreign lan-guage. At a minimum, receptive L1/L2 users offerevidence of having acquired what Clark (2003)referred to as C-representations, that is, a systemof representations for comprehension of the lan-guage that allows them to parse the stream ofspeech into meaningful units. How this systemis related to the productive system in the Li andto the receptive and productive systems in the L2is of central importance to the development ofpedagogical approaches for developing the exist-ing proficiencies of such speakers in a classroomsetting. A theory of heritage language growthor development for such individuals must bebased on a better understanding of comprehen-sion and production grammars (Swain, Dumas, &Naiman, 1974). We need to understand (a)how and why these two types of knowledge sys-tems develop independently, (b) how compre-hension and production grammars are related,(c) whether the presence of comprehensiongrammars supports the acquisition of productiongrammars in specific ways, and (d) whether theseindividuals are more similar to L2 learners thanto Li speakers.

419

Questions for the Study of Instructed HeritageLanguage Acquisition

In sum, the challenge of designing instructionin the Li for L1/L2 users raises a number of im-portant theoretical issues for practitioners whowant to maintain or develop heritage languagesas well as for researchers seeking to understandthe human language faculty. Some of these ques-tions include:

1. How can the different sources of "flawed"language production (interlanguages? inter-dialects? interregisters?) in the Li of Li/L2 usersbe identified?

2. How does the "flawed" language productionof LI/L2 users compare with that of L2 learners?

3. How do monolingual LI speakers acquire arange of registers and genres in their Li?

4. What is the order of acquisition of particularfeatures of R2s and second genres by Li speakers?

5. How do monolingual Li speakers acquire aD2?

6. What is the order of acquisition of particularfeatures in a D2 by Li speakers?

7. Are notions of interdialect or interregisteruseful in describing the acquisition of additionalregisters and dialects of Li by LI/L2 users?

8. What types of conditions account for the ac-quisition of receptive versus productive compe-tence in LI/L2 users?

9. How can comprehension grammars (as op-posed to productive grammars) be described?

10. What accounts for the development of ex-ceptional bilinguals (simultaneous interpreters)among heritage speakers (see Vald6s, 2003)?

11. What can formal classroom instruction ac-complish for LI/L2 users? Are there types ofinstruction that can reverse language attrition?What types of instruction can result in the acqui-sition of a range of registers and styles?

CHANGING THE FIELD: COMMUNITIES OFPRACTICE AND DISCIPLINARY BOUNDARIES

In considering a reconceptualization or expan-sion of the field of SLA that could take on thechallenge of examining the questions presentedabove, researchers might first examine existingprofessional communities of practice and makeevident the epistemological and methodologicalassumptions and research traditions that are partof each contributing field. In a recent work onthe nature of academic language (Vald6s, 2004),I argued that scholarly discussions do not takeplace in a social vacuum. Even without the insights

420

offered by the Bakhtin Circle 5 about the natureof intertextuality, it is very generally acceptedthat scholars engage in an ongoing dialogue withother members of their academic communitiesand their professional organizations. Scholars re-spond to each other's papers, engage in polemi-cal debates about theories and their implications,and write dense scholarly tomes, sometimes un-derstandable exclusively to other members of thesame inner scholarly circle. The context for alldiscussions, including academic debates, encom-passes a multitude of dialogues that help shape,jre-configure, and constantly change the multivoicedutterances of the various speakers. The discussionof L2 acquisition, with its focus on L2 learners, isno exception. The various existing approaches inSLA have developed and evolved in communica-tion with a particular set of voices that are part ofspecific professional worlds. The study of heritagelanguage speakers and the discussion of heritagelanguage students, as well, have taken place 'inseparate communities of practice. Given the vari-ous boundaries of academic professions, the dia-logues about these particular areas of knowledgeare unfortunately made up of a series of uncon-nected conversations that often fail to be heard byscholars who are members of other closely relatedprofessions.

Heritage language speakers have been the fo-cus of researchers engaged in the study of bilin-gualism. As is made evident by Figure 2, bilingual-ism has been studied from the perspectives of thedisciplines of sociolinguistics, linguistics, and psy-cholinguistics.

Research conducted from the perspective ofeach of these three disciplines asks different ques-tions about the nature of bilingualism and bilin-gual individuals. The sociolinguistic study of biliýn-gualism, for example, has centered on the studyof societal bilingualism. Phenomena such as lan-guage maintenance, language shift, reversal oflanguage shift, and language death have been ofparticular interest to sociolinguists. By compari-son, linguistic studies of bilingualism focus pri-marily on understanding how languages in con-tact can influence one another and how gram-matical changes due to language contact differfrom other kinds of grammatical changes. Re-searchers working in this tradition, for example,have attended to grammatical borrowing and theexamination of the'influences of one languageon another, including phonological, morpholog-ical, syntactic, and lexical transfer. Researchershave attempted to classify types of borrowing, toidentify the social and cultural determinants ofsuch borrowing, and to examine structural con-

The Modern Language Journal 89 (2005)

straints on borrowing. The psycholinguistic studyof bilingualism, however, centers on study of thebilingual individual. Four general areas have beenof particular interest to researchers: (a) bilin-guistic development and attrition, (b) informa-tion processing in bilingual individuals, (c) neu-ropsychological foundations of bilingualism, and(d) bilingualism and cognition. Studies of bilin-guistic development include research on stages ofbilingual development, differentiation in linguis-tic systems, age-related specifics of consecutivebilinguality, and the role of context in bilingual ac-quisition. Research on information processing inbilinguals includes work on language representa-tion, bilingual memory, and separate versus com-mon processors. Attention has also been givento the development of models of bilingual in-formation processing. Neuropsychological stud-ies of bilingualism, however, include a focus onhemispheric preference and on neuropsycholog-ical development.

6

As seen in Figure 2, then, the broad study ofbilingualism involves three different but relateddisciplines: sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, andlinguistics. As will also be noted from the figure,however, the study of incipient bilingualism, thefocus of SLA research, is only a narrow subareaof the field of bilingualism, the use of two lan-guages across a lifespan. Moreover, as a numberof researchers have recently pointed out, SLA pri-marily draws from the fields of linguistics and psy-cholinguistics (Atkinson, 2002; Block, 2003; Firth& Wagner, 1997; Johnson, 2004). It does not at-tend to the social context of language use in abroad sense, and it has, to date, focused primarilyon L2 learners rather than L2 users. Figure 2 sug-gests that the study of SLA should also involve theperspectives of the sociolinguistic study of bilin-gualism.

Finally, in the United States, the language edu-cation field encompasses both Li teaching and L2or foreign language teaching. In the case of vari-ous aspects of Li teaching and learning, the lan-guage education field draws from research in lin-guistics, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics tofocus on the language development of Li speak-ers, on the acquisition of academic English byspeakers of nonstandard varieties of English, andon the development of reading and writing byboth mainstream and linguistic minority students.The broad language education field has also con-cerned itself with the acquisition of English andwith the acquisition of foreign languages. SLA,the study of incipient bilingualism, is but a smallarea of the language education field and has pri-marily informed L2 teaching. It is interesting that

FIGURE 2The Study of Bilingualism

LI/L2 users who enroll in the study of their Lihave been studied not by Li researchers, and un-til recently, not by SLA researchers, but by thecommunity of foreign language teaching practi-tioners and researchers as well as by linguists andsociolinguists who are often members of foreignlanguage department faculties.

The various communities of professional prac-tice delineated here ordinarily have little to dowith one another. Published research in jour-nals rarely includes the perspectives of membersof other communities of practice. Even whenpresent at conferences, members of the variouscommunities (e.g., Li acquisition, L2 acquisition,language pedagogy, sociolinguistics) may attendcompeting sessions because large meetings aregenerally not organized to provide opportunitiesfor dialogue among experts who are part of differ-ent professional compartments. Epistemologicaland technical questions are drawn from long-termtraditions within each professional community.What counts as knowledge, what questions areworthy of attention, how theories are formulatedand tested, and how research is carried out arepart of the socializing professional experiences ofevery researcher.

Opportunities Lost or Seized?

In imagining the reconceptualization and ex-pansion of SLA that engages in the study of L1/L2users and that takes seriously societal needs in thearea of language education, I also imagine a con-tinuing conversation between members of the var-ious compartments depicted in Figure 2. Using asa point of departure what I referred to at the be-ginning of this article as "the most intractable edu-cational problems involving language," a numberof areas and questions that are crucial to schoolsuccess of linguistic minority children all over theworld come to mind. Given limitations of space,however, I will propose only three topics for con-tinued consideration.

Terms Used to Refer to the Language Education Field

The terms used to refer to an area of inquiryare basic to the definition of a field. Unfortu-nately, the term Second Language Acquisition, asBlock (2003) argued, has "built-in assumptionsabout monolingualism and separable LI and L2competences" (p. 44). A reconceptualization oflanguage learning in various language education

Guadalupe Valdis 421

422

contexts that can embrace the needs of L1/L2users must of necessity view the language educa-tion field as including LI instruction in its manymanifestations and involving several types of lan-guage acquisition and development (i.e., acquisi-tion of D2s, acquisition of a standard language,acquisition and development of specialized lan-guage registers and styles, acquisition of writtenlanguage) as well as L2 instruction that takes intoaccount beginning, intermediate, and advancedlearners. I propose, therefore, that the term In-structed Language Acquisition (ILA) be consideredcarefully as a way of including a variety of ques-tions and issues that will broaden the scope ofthe existing field. Alternatively, I suggest that theterm Educational Linguistics proposed by Spolsky(1978) be discussed as a label that clearly signalsthe involvement of SLA in educational contexts.

Moving beyond the Monolingual Norm

As Cook (2002) argued in proposing a shift inthe perspective of SLA researchers, the study ofL1/L2 users requires a viewpoint that no longerfocuses exclusively on the educated monolingualnative speaker. It requires an understanding ofboth societal and individual bilingualism and aconsideration of the methodological issues cen-tral to the study of the language behavior of bilin-gual persons that were raised by Wei (2000). Asdo other students of bilingualism, Wei has main-tained that, in bilingualism studies, issues suchas the bilinguality and ethnic origin of the re-searcher, the researcher's attitude toward bilin-gualism, the definition of language used by the "re-searcher, the research agenda of the researcher,and his or her choice of appropriate methods foranswering particular research questions are of keyimportance in obtaining valid results.

Expanding the investigation of instructed lan-guage acquisition beyond L2 learners to includeL1/L2 users will also involve a rethinking of partic-ipant selection. Bilingual individuals do not con-stitute a homogeneous group and thus cannot begrouped together by SLA researchers without risk-ing the almost immediate dismissal of the researchby students of bilingualism. Citing Grosjean(1998), Wei (2000) pointed out that in choosingbilingual speakers in research the following fac-tors should be considered: (a) language historyand language relationship, (b) language stability,(c) functions of languages, (d) language profi-ciency, (e) language modes, and (f) biographicaldata.

Finally, moving beyond the monolingual normmust involve the rejection of the standard mono-

The Modern Language Journal 89 (2005)

lingual language (e.g., standard Spanish, stan-dard Russian) as the norm against which theL1/L2 users are measured. If researchers are seri-ous about definitions of multicompetence (Cook2002, 2003b) and about the rejection of the knowl-edge of the native speaker as the ultimate goal ofL2 acquisition, they cannot simply compare pro-duction by LI/L2 users with that of native speak-ers of the standard language.

Potential Contributions of Various Areasof Knowledge to Specific Language Problems

The identification and examination of specificlanguage problems and the potential contribu-tions of various areas of knowledge to the solutionof these problems might well provide an organiz-ing framework for examining ethical issues revolv-ing around knowledge and utilization. However,as Spolsky (1978) pointed out when discussingthe field of educational linguistics many years ago,the notion that linguistic theories can be used di-rectly in the solution of educational problems isnaive. Today, addressing educational problems in-volving language will require the collaboration ofresearchers from many different backgrounds, in-cluding nonlinguist educational researchers whohave a deep understanding of educational policy,schools, classrooms, and ways in which knowledgeabout language might inform particular practices.A discussion of specific problems and the waysthey can be approached from the perspective ofdifferent areas of inquiry can lead to a better un-derstanding of what it means to generate theoret-ical knowledge and to contribute to educationalpractice.

CONCLUSION

In this article, I have called for the reconceptu-alization and expansion of the field of SLA by us-ing the teaching of heritage languages to L1/L2users as a lens through which such a reconcep-tualization and expansion might be envisioned.I maintain that in taking seriously the questionsraised by the teaching of a nondominant Li, SLAcan position itself to respond to criticisms leveledat it because of its seeming narrowness and exclu-sive preoccupation with L2s from the perspectiveof cognitive psychology. I also maintain that themost difficult problems in education today involveissues of language and groups of children whoare acquiring or are using the societal languagewhile at the same time interacting with family andcommunity members who speak a heritage lan-guage. The expansion of SLA to the study and

Guadalupe Valdýs

examination not only of the acquisition of L2, butalso of Li development in minority populations,LI reacquisition, D2 acquisition, and R2 acquisi-tion has much to offer both to the theory andthe practice of instructed (rather than second)language acquisition. There is much that the studyof LI/L2 users can contribute to our understand-ing of the human language faculty. Sdsnchez andToribio (2003), for example, provided an excel-lent overview of the theoretical understandingsthat can be drawn from the study of bilingualspeakers, including: characteristics of native lan-guage decline, identification of formal features re-sistant to deterioration, differences between faultymorphology in production and impairments inthe interpretation of aspect, permeability of Ligrammars, and the structure of unconscious ab-stract linguistic knowledge as viewed through theuse ofgrammaticalityjudgments of code-switchedforms.

Expanding SLA to engage in the study of thepossible results of Li instruction for studentswho have already acquired some competence inthis language bridges the distance between lan-guage education and a research field. Experi-ence in attempting to teach the LI to speak-ers who use the language in their everyday livesraises key questions that directly complement in-terests in L2 acquisition that have shaped the field.These questions include variability in learner lan-guage, the significance of learner error, the im-pact of input and interaction, language trans-fer, the characteristics of learner systems at dif-ferent points in the acquisition/reacquisition/development process and, perhaps most impor-tant, the impact of formal instruction on the reac-quisition/development of language.

Because language occupies a central positionin education, there is a need to address instruc-tional language problems in ways that can makea difference in the lives of children who have notbeen served well by existing educational institu-tions. Societal needs in the area of language arepressing. However, as Pennycook (1994) pointedout, schools are not "sites where a neutral bodyof curricular knowledge is passed on to students,"but rather "cultural and political arenas withinwhich various political, cultural, and social formsare engaged in constant struggle" (p. 297). Ideo-logical contexts are very much a part of the stu-dents' success and failure in the acquisition, reac-quisition, and development of both LUs and L2s.A mapping (Wetherell & Potter, 1992) of boththe popular and the scholarly discourse on bilin-gualism is beyond the scope of this article, butresearchers in instructed SLA who are interested

423

in contributing to the study of heritage languagelearning cannot afford to ignore the multilayeredset of themes that contribute directly to a versionof reality within which monolingualism is viewedas the normal and ideal human condition andbilingualism is viewed as profoundly suspect.

A discussion of research goals and social re-sponsibility cannot take place, moreover, if thereis little knowledge about the most challengingissues and problems that arise in various edu-cational contexts or about the most vulnerablegroups of L2 learners and L1/L2 users. Giventhe boundaries between areas and fields, few SLAresearchers have engaged in the extensive studyof minority language issues beginning with lan-guage policy and planning and including the ex-amination of social, political, and economic con-texts in which language education takes place. Areading of the critical language researchers (e.g.,Bhatt & Martin-Jones, 1992; Canagarajah, 1999,2002; Corson, 1997; Fairclough, 1989; Pennycook,1994; Tollefson, 1991; Wallace, 1992) offers oneperspective on such contexts as does work in thearea of linguistic human rights (Skutnabb-Kangas,2000; and Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1995).

The possibility of conceptualizing SLA so thatit brings together researchers from various com-munities of practice is an exciting one. It is par-ticularly exciting because of the possible impactthat such a community might have on importantlanguage education issues and on what I havecalled the most intractable problems facing mi-nority youngsters in American schools. I am con-vinced not only that SLA researchers have a par-ticular expertise that can contribute in importantways to the solution of language problems thataffect the lives of minority children all over theworld, but also that the presentation of even con-tradictory research claims can inform importantpolicy decisions. In California, for example, theproponents of Proposition 227, the antibilingualeducation initiative, claimed that after 1 year ofEnglish instruction in a classroom of multi-agedchildren, these students would be ready for anall-English academic curriculum. The opponentsof the initiative, including SLA researchers of thestature of Kenji Hakuta, considered it essential toengage in the debate and try to bring reason to apolitically charged anti-immigrant movement.

As was made evident by the recent Ebonics con-troversy (Baugh, 2000), the opinions of universityresearchers and scholars often become very mucha part of national debates on issues in which thepublic has strong interest. The public's stereo-typical view of the isolation of scholars in their"ivory towers" and the perceived irrelevancy of

The Modern Language Journal 89 (2005)

their opinions to public debates has given wayto a view in which scholarly "experts" have takenon the role of providing information and back-ground to the courts, media organizations, andthe public in general. As members of profes-sional media organizations work to provide bothbackground for their audiences and a balanceof differing opinions, they seek out scholars whowill present their views and participate in whatTannen (1998) called the "argument culture."Scholars are expected not only to engage in a dis-cussion of the complexity of the issues, but also toexpand the public's understanding of problemsof enormous significance. For the field of SLA,it is time to seize this opportunity to contributedirectly to a broader understanding of language.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to MLJ review-ers for their helpful comments on an earlier version ofthis article and to Lourdes Ortega, the editor of this spe-cial issue, for her extraordinarily insightful suggestions.

NOTES

1 Vald6s (1995) includes a definition of the term, lin-guistic minority and a discussion of various perspectiveson these minorities around the world. The article alsoincludes a dated, but still useful, view of instruction of

minority languages as academic subjects.2 For an overview of the teaching of Spanish as a her-

itage language see Valdhs (1995). This overview includesan examination of the key areas (e.g., the teaching of

grammar, testing and assessment, the teaching of thestandard dialect) examined by both practitioners and

researchers.3 For a recent, thorough discussion of this topic, see

Han (2003)."4 Gutierrez (2003), for example, argued that, in Span-

ish, the innovative use of estar in domains previously oc-

cupied by ser had its origin in a monolingual context butis advancing at a faster rate in bilingual communities inthe United States.

5 1 use the term Bakhtin Circle in the same way as Du-ranti and Goodwin (1992) and Moraes (1996) in orderto avoid the debate concerning the specific authorship

of the works ofVoloshinov and Medvedev that have beenattributed to Bakhtin.

6 Introductions to field of bilingualism include: Ro-

maine (1995), Hamers and Blanc (2000), Wei (2000),and Bhatia and Ritchie (2004). Wei's volume is orga-

nized to illustrate the contributions of sociolinguistics,linguistics, and psycholinguists to the study of bilingual-ism and includes an excellent bibliography.

REFERENCES

American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Por-tuguese. (2000). Spanish for native speakers. Profes-

sional development series handbook for teachers K-16.

Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Lan-

guages. (1996). Standards forforeign language learn-

ing; Preparing for the 21st century. Yonkers, NY: Na-

tional Standards in Education Project.Anderson, R. W. (1982). Determining the linguistic at-

tributes of language attrition. In R. D. Lambert &B. F. Freed (Eds.), The loss of language skills (pp.83-118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approachto second language acquisition. Modern Languagejournal, 86, 525-545.

Baker, P. (1966). Espariol para los hispanos [Spanish for

Hispanics]. Skokie, IL: National Textbook.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:Mouton.

Barker, M. E. (1972). Espafiol para el bilingiie [Spanishfor the bilingual]. Skokie, IL: National Textbook.

Baugh, J. (2000). Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic pride andracial prejudice. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Bhatia, T. K., & Ritchie, W. C. (Eds.).(2004). The hand-book of bilingualism. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Bhatt, A., & Martin-Jones, M. (1992). Whose resource?Minority language, bilingual learners and lan-guage awareness. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Criticallanguage awareness (pp. 285-302). London: Long-

man.Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language ac-

quisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown UniversityPress.

Campbell, R., & Christian, D. (2003). Directionsin research: Intergenerational transmission ofheritage languages. Heritage Language Journal,

l(1). Retrieved May 19, 2005, from http://www.international.ucla.edu / lrc/ hlj / article.asp?parentid = 3893.

Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism

in English teaching. New York: Oxford University

Press.Canagarajah, S. (2002). Critical academic writing. Ann

Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Clark, E. V. (2003). First language acquisition. New York:

Cambridge University Press.Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Lan-

guage Learning, 42, 557-591.Cook, V. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism and

cognitive processing. In A. M. B. de Groot & J.F Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholin-

guistic perspectives (pp. 279-299). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.Cook, V (2002). Background of the L2 user. In V. Cook

(Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 1-28). Clevedon,

UK: Multilingual Matters.

424

Guadalupe Valdis

Cook, V. (Ed.). (2003a). Effects of the second language onthefirst. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cook, V. (2003b). Introduction: The changing LI inthe L2 user's mind. In V. Cook (Ed.), Effects of thesecond language on the first (pp. 1-18). Clevedon,

UK: Multilingual Matters.Corson, D. (1997). Social justice in the work of ESL

teachers. In W. Eggington & H. Wren (Eds.), Lan-guage policy: Dominant English, pluralist challenges

(pp. 149-163). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.Coulmas, F. (1981). A festschrift for native speaker. The

Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.Crookes, G. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy: A so-

cioeducational perspective. Studies in Second Lan-

guage Acquisition, 20, 93-116.

Davis, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics.Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

Davis, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality.Clevedon, UK- Multilingual Matters.

Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethink-ing context: Language as an interactive phenomenon.

New York: Cambridge University Press.Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London:

Longman.Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communi-

cation, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLAresearch. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285-300.

Fishman,J. A. (1964). Language maintenance and lan-guage shift as a field of inquiry. Linguistics, 9, 32-70.

Fishman, J. A. (1985). Mother-tongue claiming in theUnited States since 1960: Trends and correlates.In J. A. Fishman, M. H. Gertner, E. G. Lowy, &W. G. Milan (Eds.), The rise and fall of the ethnic

revival: Perspectives on language and ethnicity (pp.107-194). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.

Fishman, J. A. (2001). 300-plus.years of heritage lan-guage education in the United States. InJ. K. Pey-ton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage,languages in America: Preserving a national resource

(pp. 81-97). Washington DC: Center for AppliedLinguistics/Delta Systems.

Gee,J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in

discourses. London: Falmer Press.Gibbons, J., & Ramirez, E. (2004). Maintaining a mi-

nority language: A case study of Hispanic teenagers.

Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent

but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of MultilingualMulticultural Development, 6, 467-477.

Grosjean, F. (1997). Processing mixed language: Issuesfindings and models. In A. M. De Groot & J. FKroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism (pp. 225-254). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grosjean, F (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodologi-cal and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language

and Cognition, 1, 131-149.

Gutierrez, M. J. (2003). Simplification and innovationin U.S. Spanish. Multilingua, 22, 169-184.

Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilingualityand bilingualism (2nd ed.). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

425

Han, Z. (2003). Fossilization in adult second language ac-

quisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Haugen, E. (1970). On the meaning of bilingual com-

petence. In R. Jakobson & S. Kawamoto (Eds.),Studies in general and Oriental linguistics: Pre-

sented to Shiro Hattori on the occasion of his sixti-

eth birthday (pp. 221-229). Tokyo: TEC Company,Ltd.

Ingold, C., Rivers, W., Tesser, C. C., & Ashby, E. (2002).Report on the NFLC/AATSP survey of Spanishlanguage programs for native speakers. Hispania,85, 324-329.

Johnson, M. (2004). A philosophy of second language ac-quisition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kenny, K. D. (1996). Language loss and the crisis of cog.nition: Between socio- and psycholinguistics. Berlin,Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kramsch, C. (1997). The privilege of the nonnativespeaker. PMLA, 112, 359-369.

Leung, C., Harris, R., & Rampton, B. (1997). Theidealised native speaker, reified ethnicities andclassroom realities. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 543-

560.Moraes, M. (1996). Bilingual education: A dialogue with

the Bakhtin circle. Albany, NY: State University ofNew York Press.

MuIfwene, S. S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Muller, K E. (2002). Addressing counterterrorism: U.S.literacy in languages and international affairs.Language Problems and Language Planning, 26, 1-

21.National Foreign Language Center. (n.d.). Recursospara

la ensefanza y el aprendizaje de las culturas His-panas [Resources for the teaching and learning ofHispanic cultures]. Retrieved May 16, 2005, fromhttp://www.nflc.org/REACH/

Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our re-search? The ethical as transformative lens in in-structed SLA. Modern Language Journal, 89, 427-

443.Penny, R. (2000). Variation and change in Spanish. New

York: Cambridge University Press.Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as

an international language. London: Longman.Peyton, J. K, Ranard, D. A., & McGinnis, S. (Eds.).

(2001). Heritage languages in America: Preserving anational resource. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems andCenter for Applied Linguistics.

Rampton, B. (1997). Second language research in latemodernity: A response to Firth and Wagner. Mod-ern Language Journal, 81, 329-333.

Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism (2nd ed.). Malden,MA: Blackwell.

Sdnchez, L., & Toribio, A.J. (2003). Current issues in thegenerative study of Spanish second language syn-tax. In B. A. Lafford & R. Salaberry (Eds.), Spanishsecond language acquisition: State of the science (pp.

189-232). Washington, DC: Georgetown Univer-sity Press.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1994). Second language learning:

Theoreticalfoundations. London: Longman.

426

Silva-Corvaldn, C. (1994). Language contact and change:

Spanish in Los Angeles. New York: Oxford Univer-

sity Press.Silva-Corvalin, C. (2003a). Narrating in English and

Spanish: Story telling in the words of a 5-year-old bilingual. Revista Internacional de Lingiiistica

Iberoamericana, 1(2), 35-58.

Silva-CorvalAn, C. (2003b). El espafiol en Los Ange-

les: Adquisici6n incompleta o desgaste lingiiistico

[Spanish in Los Angeles: Incomplete acquisi-tion or language attrition]? Retrieved Novem-her 5, 2004, from http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/espanol_eeuu/bilingue/csilva.htm

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in educa-

tion or worldwide diversity and human rights. Mah-wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (1995). Linguistichuman rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination.

Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Spolsky, B. (1978). Educational linguistics. Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.Spolsky, B. (1990). Introduction to a colloquium: The

scope and form of a theory of second languagelearning. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 609-616.

Swain, M., Dumas, G., & Naiman, N. (1974). Alternativesto spontaneous speech: Elicited translation andimitation as indicators of second language compe-tence. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 3, 68-79.

Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture. NewYork: Ran-dom House.

Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language contact: An intro-

duction. Washington, DC: Georgetown UniversityPress.

Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language con-

tact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning in-

equality: Language policy in the community. London:

Longman.U.S. Census Bureau. (2003, October). Census 2000 brief:

Language use and English-language ability (No.C2KBR-19). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bu-reau.

Vald6s, G. (1995). The teaching of minority languagesas "foreign" languages: Pedagogical and theoreti-cal challenges. Modern Language journal, 79, 299-

328.Valdhs, G. (2000a). Introduction. In N. Anderson (Ed.),

AATSP professional development series handbook for

teachers K-16: Vol. 1. Spanishfor native speakers (pp.

1-20). New York: Harcourt College.

The Modern Language Journal 89 (2005)

Vald6s, G. (2000b). Teaching heritage languages: Anintroduction for Slavic-language-teaching profes-sionals. In 0. Kagan & B. Rifkin (Eds.), Learningand teaching of Slavic languages and cultures (pp.

375-403). Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Vald6s, G. (2001). Heritage languages students: Profiles

and possibilities. InJ. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, &S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America:

Preserving a national resource (pp. 37-77). Wash-

ington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics/DeltaSystems.

Vald6s, G. (2003). Expanding definitions of giftedness:

Young interpreters of immigrant background. Mah-

wah, N]: Erlbaum.Vald6s, G. (2004). Between support and marginaliza-

tion: The development of academic language inlinguistic minority children. Bilingual Educationand Bilingualism, 7(2 & 3), 102-132.

Vald6s, G., & Figueroa, R. A. (1994). Bilingualism andtesting: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Vald6s, G., Fishman, J. A., Ch5vez, R., & P6rez, W.(in press). The development of minority language re-

sources: Lessons from the case of California. Clevedon,UK: Multilingual Matters.

Vald6s, G., & Geoffrion-Vinci, M. (1998). Chicano Span-ish: The problem of the "underdeveloped" codein bilingual repertoires. Modern Language Journal,

82, 473-501.Vald6s, G., GonzAlez, S., Garcia, D. L., & Mhrquez, P.

(2003). Language ideology: The case of Spanishin departments of foreign languages. Anthropologyand Education Quarterly, 34, 3-26.

Vald6s, G., GonzAlez, S., Garcia, D. L., & MArquez, P. (inpress). The challenges of maintaining non-Englishlanguages through educational institutions. In D.M. Brinton & 0. Kagan (Eds.), Heritage languageacquisition: A new field emerging (pp. 3-26). Mah-

wah, NJ: Erlbaum.Wallace, C. (1992). Critical literacy awareness in the

EFL classroom. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical lan-guage awareness (pp. 59-92). London: Longman.

Wei, L. (2000). The bilingualism reader. London: Rout-

ledge.Weinreich, U. (1974). Languages in contact. The Hague,

The Netherlands: Mouton.Wetherell, M., & Potter,j. (1992). Mapping the language

of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploita-

tion. New York: Columbia University Press.Wiley, T. G., & Vald6s, G. (2000). Heritage language

instruction in the United States [Special issue].Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4).

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Bilingualism, Heritage Language Learners, and SLAResearch: Opportunities Lost or Seized?

SOURCE: Mod Lang J 89 no3 Aut 2005WN: 0528801643009

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk

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