Who Are Heritage Language Learners? Implications of Labels of Ascription for Access and Equity

• In Event: 60.035 - Beyond "Resource or Right": Critical Heritage Language Education and Social Justice

Abstract

Linguistic diversity has been the norm in North America and that portion thereof which eventually became the United States. Although English became the dominant language, linguistic diversity has persisted. Its contemporary sources are found in homes and communities where languages other than or in addition to English are spoken. The linguistic diversity of the present is also derived from our Indigenous and immigrant (voluntary and involuntary) predecessors, who were incorporated through colonization, “settlement,” annexation, and conquest (Wiley, 2013, 2014a). Often, without explicit reference to these antecedents, the “heritage language” (HL) speaker label has gained popularity within some academic, political, and governmental circles, even as the “English learner” (EL), and other labels of ascription are simultaneously applied to the very same students. Meanwhile, the predominant education programs for these students emphasize their EL status (Arias et al., 2012; Moore et al., 2014), and they are often segregated in English-only instruction.

Objectives: This paper critiques labels of ascription, particularly the HL label, as they are applied to language minority students, and considers the implications of these labels for educational access and equity.

Theoretical Perspective: Drawing on critical applied linguistics (Tollefson, 2006), the paper provides a critique of construct of heritage languages (HL) and HL speakers in the United States. Fishman (1966) was among the first to systematically draw attention to “language loyalties” in the United States, which became a focal point for subsequent studies focused on HL as a field of study (Kagan et al., 2007; Peyton et al., 2001). Baker and Jones (1998) were among the first to note the backward/historical focus of the HL construct, and others (Wiley, 2001; 2014b) have interrogated the problem of defining the construct.

Data Sources: The paper analyzes: (1) U.S. demographic data, and (2) interdisciplinary academic and public policy literature that reflects how the HL label was constructed and gained popular currency.

Results/Findings: The HL construct has gained wide currency in the U.S. over the past 15 years, and the label has been used in some federally funded educational initiates for the promotion of “strategic” languages as well as “English language development” for HL speakers. HLs have been acclaimed as “resources” for meeting national security and economic self-interest needs (Brecht & Rivers, 2000; Brecht & Ingold, 2005), but the HL label has also been critiqued for being appropriated for those same purposes (Ricento, 2005) or rejected outright in favor of other labels (Wiley et al., 2014). Relatedly, heritage language education has been depicted as a surrogate or euphemism for bilingual education (García, 2005; García et al., 2013).

Conclusions/Significance: The paper concludes by noting that despite the strengths and limitations of the HL construct, it is generally ignored in the formation of educational policies imposed on language minority students. A strategic shift in federal policy discourse from “language minority” students to ELs has resulted in failed educational structured English immersion (SEI) polices. The implications of a critical heritage language education analytic approach for reorganizing federal and state language education policies are discussed.

Authors

• Terrence G. Wiley, Center for Applied Linguistics

• M. Beatriz Arias, Center for Applied Linguistics