• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

1 Heritage Languages Among South Asian Americans Bryn Mawr College Spring 2014 Karuna Doraiswamy Abstract* This thesis explores second generation South Asian Americans' relationships with their heritage languages; specifically, the ways in which these relationships might challenge current convention regarding the categorization of heritage and non-heritage learners along a linear spectrum. This thesis also examines the extent to which the decision to (re)leam one's heritage language might be considered a necessary step to earning cultural legitimacy in the diasporic community, a symbolic reclamation of one's history, or even a performative act intended to better match oneself to the dominant perception of what it means to be South Asian. 1 Introduction This section explains basic issues regarding heritage languages in general, including current definitional debates, research on childhood interaction with heritage languages, and the second generation's attitude toward their ancestral language and culture. 1.1 Defining heritage language learners English has long been the dominant language spoken in the United States, to the detriment of many indigenous and immigrant language communities. As such, there has been a *I would like to thank my advisor, Nathan Sanders, for his patience and assistance during this process. I also must acknowledge my parents, whose encouragement led me to pursue this topic for my thesis, as well as the Linguistics Hour at Bryn Mawr and the Panda Cams at the San Diego, National, and Atlanta zoos for keeping me grounded throughout the experience. 2 recent increase in concern about maintaining the diversity of languages spoken among American immigrant populations. While there are diplomatic and business advantages to such multilingualism, retaining knowledge of the home language is also thought to promote minority individuals' psychological well-being and overall ease the process of adjusting to life away from the home country (Brecht and Ingold 1998, Skutnabb-Kangas 1999). Still, the brunt of the actual effort to foster multilingualism has been left to individual families, despite the known fact that parental efforts at maintenance alone are not enough to prevent an eventual shift to English (Lee 2005). The current dearth of concrete, institutionalized methods to encourage maintenance of the home languages is troubling, especially given the speed with which language shift happens. For immigrants around the world, it is common for languages from the country of origin to decrease in use or be lost entirely by the second or third generation (Lee 2005). These languages are often referred to as the heritage languages of the younger generations, who are less likely to speak them. Unfortunately, much ofthe research on language in diasporic communities has historically focused on either the immigrant generation itself or the speech community as a whole; research centered specifically on second and later generations, especially heritage language learners with more complicated relationships to the ancestral language and culture, has only recently started gaining popularity. The existing research on heritage languages has remained primarily within the area of language pedagogy, prioritizing the perspective ofthe language teacher. Such research is becoming increasingly common both for less commonly taught languages where heritage language learners have a stronger presence in the classroom, and for languages like Spanish, where heritage language learners are starting to become a stronger presence among mostly 3 foreign language learners (Lee 2005). Because of this pedagogical focus, most of the current work on heritage languages has been centered on proficiency-based distinctions between heritage language learners and foreign language learners, so as to easily place students into either a heritage or foreign language track. However, researchers also acknowledge that there are multiple factors at play that could complicate these categorizations, such as individual ethnocultural and ethnolinguistic identity, individual attitudes toward the language, and the parents' level of proficiency (Carreira 2004, Lee 2005, Reynolds, Howard, and Deak 2009). As a result, there is no one established set of criteria determining whether someone is a heritage language learner; rather, the current approaches fall on a spectrum of inclusiveness, from requiring near native-like skills to be considered a heritage learner, to simply needing to personally identify in some way with the culture associated with the language (Valdes 2001, Carreira 2004, Lee 2005, Reynolds et al. 2009, Van Deusen-Scholl2003). Valdes, for example, advocates for defining the heritage language learner as one "who speaks or at least understands the language, and who is to some degree bilingual in that language" (2001: 38); those who do not meet these criteria would then be considered foreign language learners. Van Deusen-Scholl, while in general agreement with Valdes, adds another category for "heritage motivated" learners, or learners who have a close cultural connection to the language but do not have (and have never had) the native-like speaking or listening ability that comes with regular usage in the home (Van Deusen-Scholl2003). While this kind of categorization, currently the most common in academic settings, may prove convenient and useful from a pedagogical perspective, it also runs the risk of oversimplifying the diversity of second-generation learners as well as erasing the very identities that some self-identified heritage language learners seek to reclaim (Carreira 2004, Lee 2005). 4 As such, more attention is being directed to self-identified heritage language learners' motivations for seeking heritage language instruction. From this perspective, definitions of heritage language learners tend to come in different levels, or tiers. Reynolds et al. (2009) distinguish between "narrow" (native-like proficiency) and "broad" (general cultural identification) heritage learners, while Carreira defines heritage language learners as those "whose linguistic needs differ from those of second language learners by virtue of having family background in the heritage language or culture" (2004: 1), delineating four categories of heritage learners according to specific identity and linguistic needs. Lee (2005), in her survey of college students' motivations for studying less commonly taught languages, ultimately found that both narrowly-defined heritage language learners and learners with a cultural connection but little proficiency in the language expressed the need for a classroom environment that not only provides linguistic input, but also serves as a forum for exploring identity-related issues. She suggests that the conception of non-heritage learners and heritage learners as opposite ends of a linear continuum (see Figure 1) does little to assist students in the middle of the two extremes. HERITAGE LA GUAGE LEARNER CO TlNUUM Classic NHLL Prototype Ia ic HLL Prototype ~ ---------------------------------------- ~ Learners from a different Learners can shift along the continuum Learners from the ethnic background that based on the following dynamic factors; ethnic background that bring no pnor knowl dg bring some prior of language and culture to • Degree of (filiation with ethnic, knowledge of the the learning experience cultural, and/or religious identlcy language and culture to • Level of proficiency the learning experience • Experience In coumry or whh cultu re Note. NHLL = non-h rl tag language l rncr; JILL= heritage language Ieamer (taken from Lee 2005) 5 In place of the linear model, Lee proposes a two-dimensional representation of heritage status (see Figure 2), with the continuum oflinguistic proficiency forming the vertical axis, and a continuum of sociopsychological need to identify with the culture as the horizontal axis. The result is four quadrants, representing four general learner types based on the complexities of the relationship between learners and the language of study. RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF HERITAGE AND NON-HERITAGE LANGUAGE LEARNERS OF LESS COMMONLY TAUGHT LANGUAGES Linguistic Proficiency Hi•gh D A Sodopsychological ~ ---------------------- , --------------------..... Sociopsychological Need for Cuhuml : Need for Cuhuml Identification : ldentificalion Low C : B High I I I I I I I I I Linguistic• Proficiency low (taken from Lee 2005) Quadrant A represents learners with both high linguistic proficiency and a high need to identify with the culture in question -- those most likely to be considered heritage language learners according to theories that stress proficiency. Quadrant B includes those learners who proficiency-based definitions tend to neglect, namely those who have a strong need to identify with the culture but lack proficiency in the language. Traditional foreign language learners, with low proficiency and a low need to identify with the culture, make up quadrant C. Learners with already high proficiency but a low need to identify with the culture (such as Pakistani students learning Arabic) occupy quadrant D. The advantage ofthis system, according to Lee, is that any 6 student can be placed at any xy coordinate and track their progress over time, with respect to both linguistic proficiency and individual cultural needs. 1.2 Issues in childhood interaction with the heritage language Some researchers have started to examine finer-grained factors that can affect both baseline heritage language proficiency and the learners' chance of

Load more

  29

Copy Link