11. L3, L1 or L0? Heritage-Language Students as Third-Language Learners

Author(s):  
Márta Csire ◽  
Johanna Laakso
2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 314-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ka Wong ◽  
Yang Xiao

The goal of this study is to explore the identity constructions of Chinese heritage language students from dialect backgrounds. Their experiences in learning Mandarin as a “heritage” language—even though it is spoken neither at home nor in their immediate communities—highlight how identities are produced, processed, and practiced in our postmodern world. Based on 64 interviews with Mandarin learners from various Chinese dialect backgrounds, we present their identity issues in three conceptual categories: imagined community, linguistic hegemony, and language investment. The findings lead us to rethink our pedagogical emphasis to better attend to the concerns of the dialect speakers, and hopefully, to make a contribution to the fast emerging field of Chinese heritage language development.


Author(s):  
Miriam Geiss ◽  
Sonja Gumbsheimer ◽  
Anika Lloyd-Smith ◽  
Svenja Schmid ◽  
Tanja Kupisch

Abstract This study brings together two previously largely independent fields of multilingual language acquisition: heritage language and third language (L3) acquisition. We investigate the production of fortis and lenis stops in semi-naturalistic speech in the three languages of 20 heritage speakers (HSs) of Italian with German as a majority language and English as L3. The study aims to identify the extent to which the HSs produce distinct values across all three languages, or whether crosslinguistic influence (CLI) occurs. To this end, we compare the HSs’ voice onset time (VOT) values with those of L2 English speakers from Italy and Germany. The language triad exhibits overlapping and distinct VOT realizations, making VOT a potentially vulnerable category. Results indicate CLI from German into Italian, although a systemic difference is maintained. When speaking English, the HSs show an advantage over the Italian L2 control group, with less prevoicing and longer fortis stops, indicating a specific bilingual advantage.


2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Reiterer ◽  
Ernesto Pereda ◽  
Joydeep Bhattacharya

This article examines the question of whether university-based high-level foreign language and linguistic training can influence brain activation and whether different L2 proficiency groups have different brain activation in terms of lateralization and hemispheric involvement. The traditional and prevailing theory of hemispheric involvement in bilingual language processing states that bilingual and second language processing is always at least in some form connected to the right hemisphere (RH), when compared to monolingual first language processing, the classical left-hemispheric language-processing domain. A widely held specification of this traditional theory claims that especially bilinguals or second language learners in their initial phases and/or bilinguals with poor fluency and less experience rely more on RH areas when processing their L2. We investigated this neurolinguistic hypothesis with differently proficient Austrian learners of English as a second language. Two groups of L2 speakers (all Austrian German native speakers), differing in their L2 (English) language performance, were recorded on electroencephalography (EEG) during the processing of spoken English language. A short comprehension interview followed each task. The `high proficiency group' consisted of English language students who were about to complete their master's degree for English language and linguistics, while the `low proficiency group' was composed of non-language students who had only school level performance and less training in English. The age of onset of L2 learning was kept constant: 9 years for both groups. To look for cooperative network activity in the brain, EEG coherence and synchronization measures were analysed for a high EEG frequency range (gamma band). Results showed the most significant group differences in synchronization patterns within the lower gamma frequency range, with more RH involvement (extensive right-hemisphere networks) for the low proficiency group, especially when processing their L2. The results can be interpreted in favour of RH theories of second language processing since, once again, we found evidence of more RH involvement in (late) second language learners with less experience and less training in the L2. The study shows that second language training (and resulting proficiency) and/or differences in ability or state of linguistic alertness can be made visible by brain imaging using newly developed EEG-synchronization techniques as a measure.


2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-280
Author(s):  
Maria Luisa Parra

The purpose of this article is to describe the methodology and pedagogical practices of an advanced language course, Spanish and the Community,that addresses the strengths and needs of both Spanish heritage language learners and foreign language learners in classrooms that contain both populations, i.e., in mixed classrooms. Focused on the Latino experience in the United States, the course’s main goals are to advance translingual competence, transcultural critical thinking, and social consciousness in both groups of students. Three effective and interrelated pedagogical approaches are proposed: (a) community service as a vehicle for social engagement with the Latino community; (b) the multiliteracies approach (New London Group,1996), with emphasis on work with art; and (c) border and critical pedagogy drawn from several authors in the heritage language field (Aparicio, 1997; Correa, 2011; Ducar, 2008; Irwin, 1996; Leeman, 2005; Leeman &Rabin, 2001; Martínez &Schwartz, 2012) and from Henry Giroux and Paulo Freire’s work. The effectiveness of this combined approach is demonstrated in students’ final art projects, in which they: (a) critically reflect on key issues related to the Latino community; (b) integrate knowledge about the Latino experience with their own personal story; (c) become aware of their relationship to the Latino community; and (d) express their ideas about their creative artifact in elaborated written texts in Spanish (the project’s written component).


2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roswita Dressler

Some heritage language learners (HLLs) are comfortable identifying themselves as such, while others are decidedly reluctant to adopt this term (Piño & Piño, 2000). HLLs in this paper are defined as those students having a parent or grandparent who speaks German or those who have spent a significant part of their childhood in a German-speaking country (as suggested in Beaudrie & Ducar, 2005, p. 13). This paper highlights case studies of six HLLs of German at the post-secondary level who are participants in a motivation study (Dressler, 2008). Three students are ‘willing’ HLLs. The additional three case studies are of students that I will call ‘reluctant’ HLLs of German, and this paper explores the reasons behind their reluctance and the components of self-identification, which include language identity (Block, 2007; Pierce, 1995); language expertise; affiliation and inheritance (Leung, Harris, & Rampton, 1997); cultural artifacts (Bartlett, 2007) and positioning (Block, 2007).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document