270 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

Diversity in Definition: Integrating History and Student Attitudes in Understanding Heritage Learners of Spanish in New Mexico

Damián Vergara Wilson and Ricardo Martínez University of New Mexico

Abstract Although the definition of heritage language learner (HLLs) has been widely explored, researchers tend to base their definitions on learner proficiency. While such a premise is a safe and conservative way to identify heritage students, it pays little mind to inclusivity. Indeed, it may place the university in the role of cultural gatekeeper, excluding on linguistic grounds learners who might otherwise identify with a given heritage language. This research looks at historical factors and students’ linguistic attitudes to argue for a definition of HLLs based on cultural connection. First, the present study reviews the historical factors that account for the present linguistic situation. Second, an analysis of preliminary data reveals a connection between identity labels used by the beginning-level HLLs and attitudinal dimensions of maintenance. Using a methodology similar to Mejías, Anderson-Mejías, and Carlson (2003) and Mejías and Anderson (1988), the data show that this cohort of students uses a variety of identity labels and that these labels show significant correlations to diverse attitudinal conceptions of their heritage language. Keeping in mind previous research on HLL definitions, historical factors, and the attitudinal research, this paper proposes two definitions of HLLs, one for scholarly research and another for student recruitment.

Introduction In 1995 Guadalupe Valdés published a call to action to all professionals involved in the teaching of heritage languages. In her treatment of the teaching of minority languages as academic subjects, Valdés argued that the failure of the applied linguistics community was inevitable if heritage languages were taught "without a broad examination of the theoretical issues and questions that are raised by the practice of teaching heritage or home languages" (p. 300). Valdés’ fundamental position was that the discipline of heritage language instruction, which at the time of publication was still trying to pin down a name to call itself, lacked a comprehensive body of theory relevant to a uniform set of goals, effective methodologies and measurement of learning outcomes. In addition to other calls for greater research, there has been a significant response to Valdés’ challenge, including the establishment of scholarly journals, three significant conferences, annual summer research institutes, and two research resource centers, the Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage Languages at the Center for Applied Linguistics, and the National Heritage Language Resource Center, hosted at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of New Mexico responded to the need for a specialized approach to teaching heritage language learners (HLLs) by creating the Sabine Ulibarrí Spanish as a Heritage Language (SUSHL) program. Today, the SUSHL

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 271 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

program is one of the largest heritage language programs in the country, with around 500 students taught by 11 instructors in 19 to 21 sections per semester with four distinct lower- division courses: SPAN 111, SPAN 112, SPAN 211, and SPAN 212.1 It is in a spirit of examination of our SHL pedagogy that we undertake the current research. The goal of the current article is to examine factors that favor a definition of HLLs based on cultural connection for the purposes of the SUSHL program over one based on proficiency. To this end, we review the literature pertinent to the definition of HLLs and consider local historical factors affecting Spanish in New Mexico. To explore the present circumstances of HLLs, this article presents preliminary results from a larger quantitative study on the correlations between language attitudes and identity labels. All these factors will be considered in the proposed definitions of HLL.

Previous Definitions of HLL There exists ample literature regarding the need to address the needs of HLLs in the Spanish language classroom. Since the 1970s, the idea of giving HLLs of Spanish their own classroom has been endorsed as a legitimate practice by the field (Garner, 1972, p. 623). There is not, however, a similar consensus regarding terminology. Only since the 1990s has the term heritage language been agreed upon in the United States, while other names are used outside the U.S. As the debate regarding how best to approach the methodological requirements of the HL classroom has evolved, a pressing item of concern for researchers has been the definition of heritage speaker or learner (Valdés, 2000a, 2000b; Wiley, 2001; Carreira, 2004; Kagan, 2005; Kagan & Dillon, 2006; Hornberger & Wang, 2008). In addition, considerable attention has been focused on the differences among groups of HLLs even if they have the same HL (e.g., Kagan & Dillon’s (2006) model using age of arrival and amount of schooling to differentiate HLLs of Russian).

In a review of the literature, we found the Valdés’ (2001) definition to be the most widely cited by heritage language scholars (Wiley, 2001; Kagan, 2005; Kondo-Brown, 2005; Hornberger & Wang, 2008; Kelleher, 2010, among others):

Foreign language educators use the term to refer to a language student who is raised in a home where a non-English language is spoken, who speaks or at least understands the language, and who is to some degree bilingual in that language and in English (Valdés, 2000a, 2000b). For these educators, the heritage language student is also different in important ways from the traditional foreign language student. This difference, however, has to do with developed functional proficiencies in the heritage languages.2 (p.38)

In Kagan and Dillon’s 2006 article, which revisited the definition of HLL of Russian, the authors included two other relevant definitions. The first was Polinsky’s (2008): “By heritage language I mean a language which was first for an individual with respect to the order of acquisition but has not been completely acquired because of the switch to another dominant language" (p. 149). The other definition came from the UCLA Research Priorities Conference Report (2001) and uses the place of learning (home versus classroom) as the principal criterion for differentiating between heritage and foreign language learners (cited in Kagan & Dillon, 2006).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 272 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

The common denominator to be found in these definitions is the assumption that heritage learners have a cultural connection to the language as well as a measurable amount of proficiency. Kagan (2008) referred to a combination of cultural connection and proficiency as a “narrow definition” of a heritage learner, and the one that most concerns her as a heritage language educator (also see Kagan, 2005). Polinsky and Kagan (2007) provide a “broad definition” of an HLL as someone who has an emotional attachment to the language and a desire to learn it, but caution that this definition does “not provide operational criteria for identifying heritage speakers” (p. 369).

The foundations for adopting a broad definition can be found in numerous articles on Spanish as a heritage language in the United States and heritage language education in general. For example, Carreira (2004) describes a category of HLLs based on this broad definition:

…learners who lack the requisite linguistic background to enroll in HL classes but who nevertheless feel strongly connected to their ancestry. It has been our contention that although such students may behave linguistically like SLLs, they have identity needs that align them with HLLs. (p. 18)

The impetus for this category of HLLs was the concern that institutions, in using linguistic proficiency to decide which students gain admittance into SHL programs and which are placed in second or foreign language programs, may result in identity negation. Martínez (2006) has echoed this sentiment. Not limiting himself to the context of a given institution, he argues that Mexican Americans “struggle with an ethnic ‘invisibility’ imposed upon them by the ideology that equates Mexicanness with knowing Spanish” (p. 17). This ideology implies a perception that an individual’s effort to maintain his/her culture is made significantly harder in the absence of that culture's language. In other words, language and identity are directly linked. We discuss this link through a quantitative analysis presented below.

Indeed, Martinez’ argument in favor of reversing language shift implies that the absence of Spanish leads to a reduction in one’s self-perceived Mexicanness. According to this line of reasoning, if students are placed in foreign or second language Spanish programs (versus SHL), the institution risks negating their identity as members of their ethnic community. Taken one step further, if the language associated with that ethnic community is not restored in that individual, the rest of the cultural productions that define that community's culture are likely to be lost or significantly altered (Fishman, 1991). In this sense, if the goal of a heritage language program is to maintain and revitalize a language, the scope of that project is much larger than increasing the bilingual range of those learners who already have a measurable level of proficiency.

In light of the arguments for identifying as HLLs all individuals with a cultural connection to the HL without regard to proficiency, Hornberger and Wang (2008) have offered the most recent, and appropriately the most complex, definition of HLL:

In the U.S. context, HLLs are individuals who have familial or ancestral ties to the particular language that is not English and who exert their agency in determining whether or not they are HLLs of that HL and HC [Heritage Culture] (p. 27).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 273 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

In adding the element of learner agency, Hornberger and Wang (2008) depart from previous definitions, arguing that "defining HLLs requires far more than simply assessing their linguistic abilities and determining the relationship between their dominant and home languages" (p. 5).

Advocating for a definition that posits the agency of the individual does not come solely from the need to include non-proficient students. Rather, the goal of such a definition is to acknowledge the multiple, complex, and multi-dimensional identities that are constructed by HLLs. We discuss these identities in terms of the SUSHL program in more detail below. Hornberger and Wang (2008) argue that their definition allows the position of the individual within the heritage community, and of the heritage community within the mainstream society, to be examined from an ecological perspective, which involves examining a heritage community within a larger environment. Hornberger (2002) notes:

…an ecology of language metaphor captures a set of ideological underpinnings for a multilingual language policy, in which languages are understood to (1) live and evolve in an eco-system along with other languages (language evolution), (2) interact with their sociopolitical, economic, and cultural environments (language environment), and (3) become endangered if there is inadequate environmental support for them vis-à-vis other languages in the ecosystem (language endangerment) (pp. 35-36).

Taking this ecological perspective becomes an important step in shaping HL pedagogy as it affords educators insight into how HLLs, "see, perceive, interpret, present, and represent themselves in those contexts" (Hornberger & Wang, 2008, p. 6). The ecology of language framework proves useful for considering an HL definition precisely because it recognizes the way that languages co-exist, how they evolve, and how they become endangered. Understood in this way, inclusivity becomes inherent to an ecological perspective because it is concerned with all the possible groups that may have a relationship to the HL regardless of their linguistic proficiency. Notably, what it does not do is place emphasis on finding a singular, adequate definition to encompass HLLs across all environments.

Hornberger and Wang’s (2008) approach to developing an HLL definition accommodates divergent identity constructions among HLLs of the same language. Importantly, it is inclusive of HL identities that may be constructed via both non-ancestral and familial ties to a language. What could be inferred from such a definition is the following idea: if it is possible for people with ancestral ties to a language to construct their identity apart from a HL community, so too could someone without such ancestry, through socialization, construct an identity within the HL community. In fact, Beaudrie and Ducar (2005) posit an expanded definition of HLL that includes learners who were exposed to the language through Spanish speakers outside the family such as a housekeeper or friends. Attempts such as this speak to the heterogeneity of experience possible even under the umbrella of a common language.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 274 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

Ultimately, the elusiveness of a completely satisfactory definition of an HLL is reflective of the diversity of these populations and the impossibility of defining them under a single set of simplified terms. Most recent definitions have been offered with the caveat that they are not intended to be applied universally nor can they be considered adequate in every context. The caveat constitutes an exhortation to heritage language professionals to take into consideration local conditions (Potowski, 2005; Hornberger & Wang, 2008).

Local and Historical Considerations This section will briefly explore historical considerations that make the status of Spanish in New Mexico unique.

Spanish first arrived in New Mexico in the sixteenth century as a language of colonizers. From that time until 1848, when New Mexico became a territory of the U.S. after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Spanish of New Mexico evolved into its own variety chiefly as a result of geographic isolation from larger Spanish-speaking communities in Mexico (Bills & Vigil, 1999, 2008). The population of Spanish speakers in 1850 (approximately 60,000) has grown both from natural expansion as well as from waves of immigration from Mexico and Central America largely corresponding to the Mexican Revolution, the U.S. Bracero program, and the continued pressure for access to U.S. employment markets. The U.S. Census (2010) found that, like many regions, New Mexico saw a great increase in the Hispanic population (up by 25%). Moreover, New Mexico is now the U.S. state with the highest proportion of Hispanics (46% of the total population and 953,403 total).

The presence of a local variety of Spanish that has been maintained in New Mexico since colonial times is significant to the teaching of Spanish as a heritage language. Instead of being perceived solely as an immigrant language that is maintained despite heavy contact with English, the Spanish of New Mexico holds equal covert and overt prestige among local HLLs.

A factor that negatively affected the Spanish of New Mexico was the introduction, after 1848, of a large English-speaking population to the state. Along with it came pressure for a public education policy that would lead to large-scale language shift towards English before New Mexico would be granted statehood. The Beveridge Hearings, conducted in New Mexico in 1902 at the behest of the U.S. Congress, resulted in the recommendation that statehood not be granted to New Mexico until English was spoken more widely in the territory (Gonzales Berry, 2000, p. 172). The pressure to attain statehood, and the appointment in 1905 of New Mexico's first non- Hispanic territorial superintendent of schools, Hiram Hadley, led to a shift in educational policy to align with national policy. The use of English in public education was pivotal. New Mexico was incorporated as a state in 1912, by which time Hispanic New Mexicans made up only one third of the constitutional convention. In just over 50 years Spanish, which had been a language of social prestige, had become stigmatized.

Ruiz (1988) frames approaches to language policy as coming from the following perspectives: language as problem, language as resource, and language as a right. If the overarching view of Spanish in New Mexico at the turn of the century was of language as a problem, the University of New Mexico departed from that view in its published literature, opting for the perspective of

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 275 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

language as a resource. The University of New Mexico Bulletin’s inaugural issue included Aurelio Espinosa's (1909) pioneering description of the Spanish of New Mexico. In addition, university president Edward Gray published an article entitled "The Spanish Language of New Mexico: A National Resource" (Lipski, 2000). Unfortunately for Spanish speakers in the state, the university’s advocacy for Spanish did not reflect the view held by the dominant majority.

The view of Spanish as a problem and the actions this perspective triggered most likely contributed to significant attrition in the Spanish of New Mexico. Systematically, and often by force, New Mexico’s public education system undertook the deliberate eradication of the Spanish language (Bernal-Enríquez & Hernández Chávez, 2003). Simultaneously, the access gained by the Spanish-speaking population to other sectors of society, particularly government and the military, was typically predicated on proficiency in English. Historically, the political pressure toward English, negative societal attitudes toward Spanish, and the resulting educational policies in New Mexico have exerted profound influence; Bills and Vigil (2008) argue that without ongoing migration from Mexico, the language would have experienced significantly greater abandonment. Looking at census data, Jenkins (2009) found that New Mexico has seen a decline in language loyalty, measured as Hispanics who claim Spanish as their home language: “the 1980 figures for several counties had loyalty measures over 101%, whereas the 2000 data show no county with a measure greater than 84%” (Jenkins, 2006, p. 15).

The view of language as a right was primarily born out of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s and 70s. According to Lipsky (2000), Fishman, Cooper, Newman, and Ma’s Bilingualism in the barrio (1968) contributed to the establishment of a framework of sociolinguistic research on Spanish-speaking communities in the United States. It is also at this time that Chicano literature experienced its great boom, gaining recognition in the American canon for the first time, and in the process making use of Spanish, English, and code-switching. The University of New Mexico was at the core of this movement: a leading Chicano author of this period, Rudolfo Anaya, was a professor in the English department at UNM. In addition, Sabine Ulibarrí, for whom UNM's SHL program is named, made significant contributions in creative writing, literary criticism, and commentary on the language and identity of New Mexicans.

In the wake of this academic and creative production, the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese commissioned a report, entitled Teaching Spanish in School and College to Native Speakers of Spanish (1972). The central recommendation of this report reads as follows, as cited by Garner (1972):

Wherever in the United States there are pupils or students for whom Spanish is the mother tongue, at whatever grade level from kindergarten to the baccalaureate, there be established in the schools and colleges special sections for developing literacy in Spanish (Garner 1972, p. 623).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 276 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

This report was the first to bring such diverse, multi-partisan attention to the right of Spanish speakers to be educated in their heritage language.

To its credit, UNM first established a Spanish course for native speakers in the 50s, in an attempt to address a significant sector in the university that was bilingual but not bi-literate (Abeyta, Lapera & Martínez, 2009). A significant achievement of this course was the creation of the Dictionary of the Spanish of Northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado (Cobos, 1983). This monumental reference was inspired and enriched by Cobos’ experience with New Mexico Spanish speakers at UNM. Along with Bills and Vigil's Linguistic Atlas of the Spanish of Northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado (2008), Cobos is considered one of a limited number of authoritative references documenting the local variety of Spanish.

In 1978, Erlinda Gonzales-Berry became coordinator of the UNM Spanish for Native Speakers program and was succeeded in 1999 by María Dolores Gonzales, who gave the program its current name. Both coordinators advocated maintenance and revitalization of Spanish in New Mexico. They also promoted dialectal awareness, supporting the use of home dialects while teaching affirmation, encouraging students to maintain their home dialect, and to know about register variation.

In an effort to accommodate students’ varying proficiency levels, Gonzales trained SHL instructors in a framework she referred to as "polishing the gem" (Gonzales & Gonzales de Tucker, 2009, p. viii). This is an additive perspective that encourages instructors to focus on what the students possess instead of what they lack. Using such an approach, the goal is to design a curriculum that is both relevant to the students and cognizant of the linguistic system already in place. Building on that, the SHL model attempts to undo the effects of language colonization caused by the historical factors previously noted. One of the central components in this effort was the development of a textbook for the SUSHL program that takes their profile into consideration. In the preface, Gonzales and Gonzales Tucker (2009) note:

…within the decolonization and revitalization model, our primary objectives are the 1. recovery and maintenance of Spanish, 2. literacy in the heritage language, 3. And the inculcation of confianza [confidence] and orgullo [pride] in students, encouraging their transformation from receptive to active bilinguals. (p. vi)

Working with this model of decolonization, it is crucial to give the students opportunities to both recover their language and learn about why they have to recover it.

At the same time, although the instructors were trained to recognize the complex, multidimensional and constructed nature of identity, the HLL definition at UNM prior to 2009 was formulated along proficiency lines and loosely adapted from the Valdés definition. The definition in previous outreach literature produced by the SUSHL program read, “These classes are for students who grew up in a Spanish-speaking environment who understand or speak some Spanish as a result” (Gonzales, 2008, n.p.).3 Referencing the beginning level class (Spanish 111), the description read, “…a beginning course for students who grew up around Spanish,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 277 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

understand 50% of a basic Spanish conversation, and can produce isolated words but not full sentences” (Gonzales, 2008, n.p.). These definitions proved problematic as the definition was not only focused on proficiency, but based on the near-impossible quantification of a percentage of a “basic” conversation without regard to interference from potential unfamiliarity with a given register, dialect or situational context. Most importantly, we have found that this description has caused potential beginning SHL students to enter the second language track instead of the heritage track; as a result, they are deprived of participating in a program that is designed with both their entry-level linguistic needs and identity considerations in mind.

SHL Students in the New Millennium: Identity and Attitudes toward Maintenance This section focuses on entry-level SHL students and draws primarily from preliminary results of a larger research project examining the attitudes towards language maintenance among SHL students at UNM. While this study draws on methods of studying linguistic attitudes toward maintenance implemented by previous researchers (Cooper & Fishman, 1977; Hofman, 1977; Mejías, Anderson-Mejías, & Carlson, 2003; Mejías & Anderson, 1988), it also examines identity labels used by students. The study also follows on previous research (Wilson, 2004; Valdivia, 2010). While the data presented provide rich preliminary results, they chiefly will be discussed as they pertain to the task of developing a definition of HL learners in the SUSHL program.

Methodology Beginning level students of the SUSHL program (Span 111) were given a questionnaire; a total of 109 students participated. The questionnaire asked them to indicate which ethnic labels they used from a list on the questionnaire (see Table 2) and presented them with a set of 12 statements about their possible motivations for studying and/or maintaining Spanish. Although the motivations were based on the dimensions used by Mejías, Anderson-Mejías, & Carlson (2003) and Mejías and Anderson (1988), the task for the present study was to rate the importance of each reason on a Likert-type scale from 1-5 (1 = not important at all, 3 = somewhat important, and 5 = very important) instead of marking the most important three items with an ‘x’ as the previous researchers did. Table 1 provides the list of the reasons included in the questionnaire for maintaining and using Spanish.

Table 1. Reasons for Maintaining / Using Spanish I want to maintain / use Spanish… Attitudinal Dimension measured: 1. to feel good about myself. Sentimental 2. because it helps me to make money at my job. Instrumental 3. because I do not want to lose my language. Value* 4. because I like to listen to Spanish programs on radio and television. Communication 5. to give me more chances to express my feelings. S

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 278 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

Table 1 (continued). 6. because it helps me to be more broadly educated. I 7. to keep my traditional values. V 8. because it is necessary for daily communication. C 9. because it is a beautiful language. S 10. to complete part of my general education. I Table 1 (continued) 11. to teach it to my children. V 12. to get along with my parents, relatives, and friends. C * Also considered to index language loyalty (Mejías Anderson-Mejías, & Carlson, 2003; Silva-Corvalán, 1994)

Briefly, sentimental attitudes toward Spanish have to do with “feelings, emotions and personal satisfaction in the use of Spanish” (Mejías & Anderson, 1988, p. 402). Instrumental attitudes have to do with personal/professional gain and practicality. The value dimension indicates that Spanish is perceived as having an intrinsic and ongoing importance as an interpersonal or public symbol. Communicative items are related to the use of Spanish in daily communication (for a more thorough discussion please consult the overview in Mejías, Anderson-Mejías, & Carlson (2003) or Martínez (2006, pp. 20-24)).

The results were subjected to an analysis using Rbrul (Johnson, 2009), an interface with R that resembles Goldvarb (Rand & Sankoff, 1990) but handles continuous data. Therefore, this analysis includes elements of comparative variationist methodology that have been adapted to attitudinal data.4 The survey items were combined as per the attitudinal dimensions that they are proposed to measure, and the overall averages for each dimension were analyzed according to their correlations with the independent variables on the questionnaire (identity label, high school, gender). The results of this analysis will be presented Table 3 below. The following section discusses the identity labels the participants used.

Identity Labels among SUSHL Students Table 2 lists the total number of times each identity label was selected. These labels were deemed to represent commonly used labels in New Mexico. Two proportions are provided: the number of responses as a percentage of the total (% of responses), and the percentage of students who chose each label (% of students). On the questionnaire, students were encouraged indicate as many identity labels as they wished, resulting in a total of 255 labels in the data from 109 participants.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 279 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

Table 2

Ethnic Labels Listed on Questionnaire, Number of Responses, and Percentage of Total Identity Label N % of % of responses students (total = 255) (total = 109) Hispanic 96 38 88 American 32 13 29 Spanish 24 09 22 Latino/a 20 08 18 Table 2 (continued) Chicano/a 16 06 15 Anglo 16 06 15 Spanish-American 15 05 14 Mexican 12 04 11 Mexican-American 8 03 07 Mexicano/a 7 03 06 Native American 3 01 03 Afro-Latino/a 2 0.8 02 Coyotito5 2 0.8 02 Cubano/a 1 0.3 1 Puertorriqueño 1 0.3 1 Manito 0 - - Total: 255

It is not surprising that the label Hispanic was chosen by 88% of all participants. In previous research on identity labels conducted on SUSHL students (Valdivia, 2010; Wilson, 2004), this label was most frequently chosen by 60% of participants in Wilson’s study and by 52% in Valdivia’s study. The higher percentage of participants who selected this label in the present data could be a product of different data collection tools, since this study’s questionnaire encouraged participants to choose as many labels as applied.

At the same time, if we view the label Hispanic in terms of the percentage of total number of responses or labels chosen, we see that it comprises only 38%. This total provides evidence that

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 280 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

these entry-level SHL students do not uniformly view themselves as Hispanic to the exclusion of other identity labels. In fact, out of 109 participants, only 38 (35%) chose Hispanic as their only identity label. Participants commonly chose more than one label: 29 (27%) chose two, 19 (17%) chose three, and 19 (17%) chose four or more; one participant chose eight.6 In line with Gonzales’ (2005) assertions, these responses are evidence that identity is fluid and dynamic among these participants.

Despite being dynamic, identity labels other than Hispanic appear at a markedly lower percentage in Table 2 and show some surprising results when compared to previous data. While Spanish and Spanish-American appeared at almost negligible rates in previous data (Valdivia, 2010; Wilson, 2004), twenty two percent of participants here use Spanish and 14% use Spanish- American. Moreover, a higher percentage of students use Spanish and Spanish American than Mexican (11%), Mexican-American (7%), or Mexicano/a (6%).

The diversity and relevance of identity labels can vary according to place and context. In a study of a similar group, Beaudrie (2009) found that while Mexican-American was used much more frequently than Hispanic, both were used more than other labels. She explained this finding by proposing that these labels reflected the duality of the students’ identity in relation to Latino and American culture. In a similar vein, Carreira (2003) cites polls from mass media to support her proposal that younger Hispanics generally identifying more with their heritage culture than older Hispanics do.

Taking into account that the participants are enrolled in an entry-level course, the differences in the proportion of Hispanic as opposed to Mexican, Mexican-American, and Mexicano/a could be tied not only to dynamics of identity, but to perceived language competency. Villa and Villa (1998), in examining self-reports of identity labels and Spanish competence among first and second semester SNS students, proposed that labels reflecting a possible country of origin, (e.g. Mexicano/a or Mexican) coincide with greater self-reported language competency than labels like Hispanic or Spanish. Additionally, Valdivia (2010) and Wilson (2004) demonstrated that participants who chose the label Chicano rated their own Spanish competency (reading, writing, speaking) higher than other groups, while students using Hispanic had the lowest self-evaluation.

Labels, Gender, Place of Origin, and Attitudes toward Maintenance This section briefly outlines the analysis of the survey’s attitudinal data. Table 3 lists the average total ratings of the items according to the attitudinal dimension of Spanish they represent.

Table 3

Average of Ratings According to Attitudinal Dimension of Motivation Attitudinal Dimension Overall Average Instrumental 4.06 Value 3.92 Sentimental 3.43 Communication 3.03

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 281 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

It is not surprising that this cohort of students rated the instrumental dimensions of Spanish most highly and communication as the lowest. This choice indicates that they chiefly view Spanish as both a tool for professional development and an important part of fulfilling their education. At the same time, the low overall rating of the communicative dimension could indicate that these beginning-level students don’t use much Spanish in their daily communication. However, being close to the middle value on the scale (3 = somewhat important) indicates that, in the aggregate, this cohort neither favors nor disfavors the communicative dimension.

In addition, participants rated the importance of maintaining Spanish differently according to the labels they chose for themselves. Table 4 shows statistically significant correlations between identity labels used and the attitudinal dimensions of motivation presented on the questionnaire. Table 4’s final column indicates whether the particular group favors or disfavors the dimension in question and gives the significance (p-value calculated from a chi square), the range, and factor weights. Factor weights greater than 0.5 correspond to favoring a higher evaluation of a certain dimension while factor weights less than 0.5 correspond to favoring a lower evaluation. These results are presented in order of factor strength (i.e., the range) with the highest measures at the top of the table. To reach these calculations, rating values were collapsed: values of less than three on the questionnaire were considered to disfavor a given dimension while values of over three were considered to favor it. The value three was considered neutral and was excluded.

Table 4

Significant Correlations between Motivational Dimensions and Identity (p ≤ 0.05) Identity Label Significant Attitudinal Results (Rbrul): Favor/disfavor, p-value, Dimension Range, Factor Weights Mexican Communication Favors (p = 0.004, range ≥ 0.98) (combined avgs) >0.99 <0.01 Mexicano/a Sentimental Favors (p = 0.012, range ≥ 0.74) (combined avgs) >0.99 0.25 Spanish Value Favors (p = 0.006, range = 0.46) (combined avgs) 0.84 0.38 Chicano/a Instrumental (Item 2: …because Disfavors (p = 0.041, range = 0.42) it helps me to make more money 0.16 at my job) 0.58

In the Table 4 data, the most significant correlation between identity label and attitudinal dimension is in the group of participants who indicated that they use the label Mexican and chose the communicative dimension (combined averages of items 4, 8, and 12); these participants almost categorically favored the communicative dimension as indicated by the factor weights of over 0.99 and less than 0.01. This strong correlation supports some of the findings discussed in

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 282 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

the previous section regarding labels and proficiency (Valdivia, 2010; Villa & Villa, 1998; Wilson, 2004). In other words, the communicative dimension may be more relevant to students using the label Mexican because, despite the fact that they are in an entry-level class, they use their Spanish as a tool for daily communication. After all, the items proposed to represent this dimension report Spanish as important in daily communication with friends, relatives, and parents, as well as in listening to Spanish programs on radio and television. All of these require proficiency in the language.

The next two significant correlations (Mexicano/a with sentimental and Spanish with value) also show a connection between conceptualizations of identity among beginning SHL students and their conceptualizations of the heritage language.

Participants using the label Chicano/a disfavor Item 2 from the questionnaire (“because it helps me to make money at my job”), as indicated by the smaller factor weight above the larger one. The choice of this label correlated with the factor weight of 0.16, which indicates a strong dispreference. On the other hand, absence of this label (0.58) is very close to the neutral value of 0.5, indicating only a weak preference. This correlation is different from the others in that it represents a correlation to a single item on the questionnaire instead of a combined average of a group of related items. We included this measurement because there were no significant correlations to the overall instrumental dimension according to identity label in these data. Including this correlation suggests how students may interact with items in the instrumental dimension. In addition, this measurement appears charged with possible interpretations. At the very least it shows that these participants did not embrace the concept of using Spanish for financial/personal gain.

Finally, it is important to look at interactions that were not found to be significant. There were no significant correlations between participants who used the label Hispanic and any of the four dimensions. In addition, there were no significant correlations between the different labels and the instrumental dimension taken as a whole.

It is difficult to say with precision why the students’ choices of group identity correlated to varying dimensions of motivation. The most relevant finding in these data is that different labels correspond to different conceptualizations of the value of speaking and maintaining Spanish. These conceptualizations may index political stances or higher relative rates of competence, or confidence, in the heritage language. Further research will shed light on this area.

Discussion and Conclusion Formulating a definition of HLL for the SUSHL program requires an understanding of the diversity in students’ sense of identity. We find their choices to be in line with the ecological framework of Hornberger (2002) and Hornberger & Wang (2008). Most participants choose more than one label, and their choices of identity labels may indicate varying perceptions of the value of Spanish as well as differences in proficiency. Of course, many of these perceptions could be ongoing relics of historical factors outlined above, or recent developments from more current social trends. In this section I will discuss the previous sections as they relate to developing a definition of HLLs that is not based on proficiency.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 283 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

The discussion of our discipline’s history in the state of New Mexico points to an extensive and rich tradition in promoting Spanish language. Present for over four hundred years in our state, Spanish has been the linguistic code of the colonizer and the colonized, yet has always existed in a shared space. Curriculum design requires treatment of the language’s history as well as an acknowledgement of the diversity and complexity of the identities found in our cohort. In addition to being diverse and complex, identity is fluid and emergent; as the descendants of the colonial variety of Spanish abandon the language, new waves of immigration give us a supply of native speakers that bolster maintenance (Bills & Vigil, 2008). Descendants of traditional New Mexican Spanish speakers most likely will have a different perception of their heritage language than descendants of modernly established immigrants. A definition must therefore cast a broad net, recognizing the complex dynamic that operates between our history and our students’ current constructions of identity if we are to serve a diverse group of beginning students. At the same time, we need to consider in what ways the definition will be used, e.g. for recruitment into the program, research and curriculum development, or other purposes. Finally, using proficiency as a criterion in a definition of HLL runs counter to one of our primary program goals: revitalizing Spanish in New Mexico among a population in which the language was deliberately eradicated.

To meet a variety of requirements, the following definition has been proposed, both as a foundation for broader curriculum development in the SUSHL program and to conduct research:

Heritage Learners are learners, irrespective of proficiency, whose relationship with language is more complex than foreign language learners as a result of their socialization in their linguistic and cultural setting, their positioning of themselves with respect to that language and the dominant society, their positioning by the dominant society, and their own desire to explore and develop a productive connection with that language. The complexity of such a relationship has significant pedagogical implications, including a profound impact on the learner’s ability to acquire the language and to choose or decline self-identification as a member of a given ethnic group.

For the purposes of outreach literature for our program, we must recognize that a proficiency- based definition would intimidate many passive bilinguals. We have found that even students who feel distant from the language benefit greatly from our SHL entry-level classes. In the interest of recruiting them, and as a result of our study, we propose the following definition:

SHL learners seek to explore and develop their connection to the Spanish language. Such a connection to the language may come through community, family, or cultural heritage.

Our view is that these definitions, however fitting they may seem at the time of publication, must be viewed as works in progress. Additionally, the goal of these definitions is to guide a pedagogical framework and identify HLLS, without excluding or limiting them. While we hope that these SUSHL definitions may be of use to other HL professionals, it is important to note that

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 284 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

they were framed from and for the context of our students, and the implications of our study may not apply to other environments. However, it is our hope that other researchers will consider their own HLL population and ecological linguistic circumstances and create their own definitions; we should let students show us who they are and not the other way around.

References Abeyta, D., Lapera, A., & Martínez, R. (2009). Carrying the SHL torch forward at UNM (Term paper for SPAN 541, Research on Teaching Spanish, Prof. J Sykes). Beaudrie, S. (2009). Spanish receptive bilinguals: Understanding the cultural and linguistic profile of learners from three different generations. Spanish in Context, 6(1), 85-104. Beaudrie, S., & Ducar, C. M. (2005). Beginning level university heritage programs: Creating a space for all heritage language learners. Heritage Language Journal, 3(1), 1-26. Retrieved from http://www.international.ucla.edu/media/files/beaudrie_and_ducar.pdf Bernal-Enriquez, Y., & Hernández Chávez, E. (2003). La enseñanza del español en Nuevo México: ¿Revitalización o erradicación de la variedad Chicana? [Teaching Spanish in New Mexico: Revitalization or erradication of the Chicana variety?]. In A. Roca & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Mi Lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States, research and practice (pp. 96-119). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Bills, G. D., & Vigil, N. A. (1999). Ashes to ashes: The historical basis for dialect variation in New Mexican Spanish. Romance Philology, 53, 43-67. Bills, G., & Vigil, N. (2008). The Spanish language of New Mexico and southern Colorado : A linguistic atlas. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. Carreira, M. (2003). Profiles of SNS students in the twenty-first century: Pedagogical implications of the changing demographics and social status of U.S. Hispanics. In A. Roca & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Mi Lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States, research and practice (pp. 51-77). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Carreira, M. (2004). Seeking explanatory adequacy: A dual approach to understanding the term "Heritage Language Learner." Heritage Language Journal, 2(1), 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.international.ucla.edu/languages/heritagelanguages/journal/article.asp?parentid=1 4647 Cobos, R. (Ed.). (2003). A dictionary of New Mexico & southern Colorado Spanish. Santa Fe, NM: Museum of New Mexico Press. Cooper, R. L., & Fishman, J. A. (1977). A study of language attitudes. In J. A. Fishman & et al. (Eds.), The spread of English (pp. 239-76). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Fishman, J. A. (1991). Language shift and reversing language shift: Introductory considerations. In J. A. Fishman (Author), Reversing language shift: theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages (pp. 1-81). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. A., Cooper, R. L., Newman, R. L., & Ma. R. (1968). Bilingualism in the barrio: the measurement and description of language dominance in bilinguals. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research. Garner, B. A. (1972). Teaching Spanish in school and college to native speakers of Spanish. Hispania, 55, 619-631.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 285 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

Gonzales-Berry, E. (2000). Which language will our children speak? The Spanish language and public education policy in New Mexico, 1890-1930. In D. Maciel & E. Gonzales-Berry (Eds.), The contested homeland: a Chicano history of New Mexico (pp. 169-189). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Gonzales, M. D. (2005). Todavia Decimos 'Nosotros [Los] Mexicanos': Construction of Identity Labels among Nuevo Mexicanos. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 24(1-2), 65-77. Gonzales, M. D. (2008). Sabine Ulibarrí Spanish as a Heritage Language [website]. Retrieved from http://www.unm.edu/~shlinfo/gencourseshl.htm Gonzales, M. D., & Gonzales de Tucker, C. (2009). [Preface]. In Español: nuestra herencia, nuestro tesoro. New York: Pearson Prentice Hall. Hofman, J. E. (1977). Language attitudes in Rhodesia. In J. A. Fishman, R. L. Cooper, & A. W. Conrad (Eds.), The Spread of English: The sociology of English as an additional language (pp. 277-301). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach. Language Policy, 1(1), 27-51. Hornberger, N. H., & Wang, S. C. (2008). Who are our heritage language learners? Identity and biliteracy in heritage language education in the United States. In D. Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 3-38). New York: Routledge. Jenkins, D. (2009). The cost of linguistic loyalty: Socioeconomic factors in the face of shifting demographic trends among Spanish speakers in the Southwest. Spanish in Context, 6(1), 7- 25. Johnson, D. E. (2009). Getting off the Goldvarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 357-383. Kagan, O. (2008, June 3). What is a heritage language, Olga Kagan? [transcript of podcast]. Retrieved from http://nhlrc.ucla.edu/news/article.asp?parentid=93215 Kagan, O. (2005). In support of a proficiency-based definition of heritage language learners: The case of Russian. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8, 213-221. Kagan, O., & Dillon, K. (2006). Russian Heritage Learners: So what happens now? The Slavic and Eastern European Journal, 50(1), 83-96. Kondo-Brown, K. (2005). Differences in language skills: Heritage language learner subgroups and foreign language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 563-581. Kelleher, A. (2010). Who is a heritage language learner? [heritage brief]. Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage Languages. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/heritage/research/Who-is-a-Heritage-Language-Learner.pdf Lipski, J. (2000). Back to zero or ahead to 2001? Issues and challenges in U.S. Spanish research. In A. Roca (Ed.), Research on Spanish in the United States: Linguistic issues and challenges (pp. 1-41). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Martínez, G. A. (2006). Mexican Americans and language: del dicho al hecho. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Mejías, H. A., & Anderson, P. L. (1988). Attitude toward use of Spanish on the South Texas border. Hispania, 71(2), 401-407. Mejías, H. A., Anderson-Mejías, P. L., & Carlson, R. (2003). Attitude update: Spanish on the South Texas border. Hispania, 86(1), 138-150.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 286 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

Polinsky, M. (2008). Heritage language narratives. In D. Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 149-164). New York: Routledge. Polinsky, M., & O. Kagan. (2007). Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 368-395. Potowski, K. (2005). Fundamentos de la enseñanza del español a los hispanohablantes en los EEUU [Fundamentals of teaching Spanish to Spanish speakers in the U.S. Madrid: Arco Libros, S.L. Poplack, S., & Tagliamonte, S. (2001). African American English in the diaspora. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers. Potowski, K. (2005). Spanish language maintenance education in Chicago, IL, U.S.A. In E. Witte, L. Van Mensel, M. Pierrard, L. Mettewie, A. Housen, & R. DeGroof (Eds.), Language, attitudes & education in multilingual cities. Wetteren: Universa Press. Rand, D., & Sankoff, D. (1990). GoldVarb: A variable rule software application for the Macintosh, Version 2. Montreal: Centre de recherches mathématiques, Université de Montréal. Ruiz, R. (1988). Orientations in language planning. In S. McKay & S. C. Wong (Eds.), Language diversity, problem or resource? A social and educational perspective on language minorities in the United States (pp. 3-25). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). State and County Quick Facts. Retrieved from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35000.html Valdés, G. (1995). The teaching of minority languages as academic subjects: Pedagogical and theoretical challenges. Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 299-328. Valdés, G. (2000a). [Introduction]. In Spanish for native speakers. AATSP professional development series handbook for teachers K-16, Vol. 1 (pp. 1-20). New York: Harcourt College. Valdés, G. (2000b). Teaching heritage languages: An introduction for Slavic language professionals. In O. Kagan and B. Rifkin (Eds.), Learning and teaching of Slavic languages and cultures (pp. 375-403). Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: preserving a national resource (pp. 37-77). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics. 2001. Washington, DC: CAL, ERIC ; [McHenry, IL]: Delta Systems. Valdés, G. (2010, February 19). Ruminations on heritage languages: a few (semi)radical thoughts. Plenary address presented at First International Conference on Heritage/Community Languages, University of California, Los Angeles. Valdivia, V. (2010). Identity and Linguistic Attitudes. Presented at the First International Conference on Heritage/Community Languages, University of California, Los Angeles, Feb 19-21. Villa, D., & Villa, J. (1998). Identity labels and self-reported language use: Implications for Spanish language programs. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 505-516.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 287 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

Wiley, T. G. (2001). On defining heritage languages and their speakers. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 29-36). Washington, DC: CAL, ERIC ; [McHenry, IL] : Delta Systems. Wilson, D. V. (2004). Heritage language placement exams, self-esteem and attitudes. Paper presented at the 20th Conference on Spanish in the U.S., Chicago, IL. March 24-26.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access 288 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.6 Summer, 2011

Notes 1. At the time of publication, a fifth semester upper-division writing course is being developed and added to the program: SPAN 302.

2. Interestingly, in a 2010 plenary speech before the First International Conference of Heritage/Community Languages, Valdés discussed the terms used to describe heritage speakers, eventually conceding, "I don't think we are going to find a term that is completely satisfactory, but we respond to it because we have a sense it doesn't quite suit what we do".

3. This definition is from an earlier version of the UNM SUSHL program website and is longer accessible.

4. By comparative variationist methodology we refer to methodology typically used in sociolinguistics to study factors that condition linguistic variation and to develop a hierarchy of these factors in terms of their effects on the linguistic variable (Poplack & Tagliamonte, 2001). Goldvarb is the most commonly used program. Like Rbrul, it is highly useful because it provides probabilistic factor weights. Adapted to these data, Rrul shows how the usage of a label will influence the probability that the participant will rate a certain item in a certain way.

5. While this term may be polemical closer to the U.S./Mexico border and in Mexico, in Northern New Mexico coyotito (or, coyote) is a term from the colonial Spanish caste system (Gonzales, 2005) that refers to an individual who is half Anglo and half Hispanic.

6. This participant indicated the following labels: Hispanic, Mexican, Mexicano/a, Mexican- American, Spanish, Spanish-American, Latino/a, and American.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:28:32AM via free access