Heritage Language Research: Lessons Learned and New Directions Terrence G. Wiley President, Center for Applied Linguistics Professor Emeritus, Arizona State University
Overview This presentation will provide a brief review of past issues, challenges, and recent trends in heritage language research. The Demographic Context of HLs in the U.S. Major Sources of Linguistic Diversity in the U.S. Research on Patterns of Intergenerational Transmission of HLs and Prospects for Maintenance Survey Research on the Status of Language Education in U.S. Schools Some Recent Trends in HL Research Possible New Directions in HL Research Implications for Language Policy Implications for Families and Communities Efforts by the Center for Applied Linguistics 1
Increasing Language Diversity in the U.S. Number and percent of LOTE speakers (in millions) 1980 1990 2000 2006 23.1(11%) 31.8(13.8%) 46.9 (17.9%) 54.9 (19.7%) Sources: McArthur, 1993, p. 43 and United States Census 2000, Summary File 3, Table DP-2 as reported in Wiley (2005); and United States Community Survey 2006. 2
Demographic Context: Languages that Are Increasing Language U.S. Census 2000 U.S. Census 1990 Increase % Gain Spanish 28,101,052 17,339,200 10,761,852 62% Chinese 2,022,143 1,319,500 702,643 53% Tagalog 1,224,241 898,700 325,541 36% Vietnamese 1,009,627 507,100 502,527 99% Korean 894,063 626,500 267,563 43% Asian Indian (combined) 815,450 644,400 171,050 27% Russian 706,242 242,700 463,542 191% Arabic 614,582 355,100 259,482 73% Portuguese 564,630 429,900 134,730 31% Japanese 477,997 427,700 50,297 12% Haitian French 453,368 187,700 265,668 142% Persian (Farsi) 312,085 201,900 110,185 55% Thai and Laotian 269,767 206,300 63,467 31% Armenian 202,708 149,700 53,008 35% 3
Three Major Sources of Linguistic Diversity in the U.S. Immigration Initial European Migration to 1776 Immigration from Western Europe to the US Civil War Immigration from Eastern & Southern Europe from the late 19th Century to WWI More diverse immigration post 1965 to present Expansionism Eastern US to 1776 Annexations to 1819 (Louisiana & Florida) TX, CA and Mexican Session (1845-1848) Alaska (1867) Hawaii (1895) Puerto Rico, Philippines (1898-1901) Pacific Islands (post 1945) Transmission Disposition of receiving society (open v. discriminatory) Family Community (informal and formal associations) Social networks (local and international) Institutions (e.g., religion) Formal Instruction Wiley (2010) 4
Research on Transmission & Loss of HLs Major Representative Studies: Alba et al. (2002) used the 2000 US Census to focus on children 6-15 in newcomer families. Findings: The second generation was bilingual and had the ability to speak English well; the third generation rarely retained the HL, except in some border communities with proximity to Mexico or those Puerto Rican or Cuban American communities which have high population density. Pew Hispanic Center (2004) used a telephone survey of adults 18+ (of Hispanics and Latinos from 19 countries) to assess language dominance based on speaking and reading abilities in English and Spanish. Findings: There was a three-generational pattern of language shift similar to Alba s findings and those of previous studies (see next slide). Immigration & Intergenerational Mobility in Metropolitan LA (2005) This cross-generational study sampled nearly 5000 Mexican, Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Filipino, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and other immigrants. It focused on language speaking abilities and preferences. Findings: Rapid language shift and loss in even the 1.5 generation (see Table 1.4 below and Rumbaut, 2009 for further discussion). 5
CILS Study on HL Intergenerational Transmission / Loss Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS) This study sampled (5000+ representatives of 77 ethnic groups. Through surveys conducted in San Diego and Dade County FL, it followed on 1.5 and 2nd generation children, who arrived in the U.S. before adolescence and US-born children of immigrants, living in Southern CA and South FL. It followed subjects for more than 10 years, into their mid- 20s. The surveys were conducted in 1992, 1995, and 2001-2003. The CILS permitted both comparative and longitudinal analysis. Rumbaut (2009). 6
CILS Intergenerational Longitudinal Study Major Findings 1.5 Generation (those coming to the US between ages 6-12) In 1992, only 42% spoke English well; this rose to 77% in 2002. Just over half preferred English in 1992; but the overwhelming majority did in 2002. 1.75 Generation (those coming to the US < 6 years old) In 1992, 77% spoke English well; this rose to 77% in 2002. In 1992 72% preferred English; but 97% did so by 2002. However, 3 of 5 still use their HL with their parents. 2.0 Generation (US-born but both parents foreign-born) From1992 to 2002, about 90% indicated the spoke English well. Preference for English increased from 82% in 1992, to 98% in 2002. In 1992, about 96% used only the HL at home, compared with about 1/3 in 2002, And about 1/3 were using both languages in 2002. 2.5 Generation (US-born with one parent foreign-born and one US-born) From1992 to 2002, over 90% indicated the spoke English well.. They overwhelmingly prefer and use English. About 2/3 use only English at home. See Rumbaut (2009, pp. 48-63) for more detail. 7
Conclusions and Implications of the Intergenerational Studies The CILS and IIMMLA data sets were merged in a secondary data analysis by Rumbaut (2009), who concluded: The analysis showed that even among the Mexican origin, the Spanish language died by the third generation; all other languages died between the second and third generations (pp. 63-64). The death of languages in the United States is not only an empirical fact, but part of a global process of language death... [A] foreign language represents a scare resource in a global economy; immigrants efforts to maintain that part of their cultural heritage and to pass it on to their children certainly seem worth supporting. Indeed the United States finds itself enmeshed in global economic competition [t]he second generation, now growing up in many American cities could fulfill such a need (p. 64). 8
Reasons for the Loss of Heritage Languages Necessity to acquire English Lack of awareness of language diversity as a resource in the broader population Negative attitudes/ideologies toward LOTEs Lack of educational opportunities, particularly in the early grades Lack of articulation in language education between lower grades, secondary schools, and institutions of higher education 9
10
Languages Offered by Elementary Schools CAL Survey Findings 1987, 1997 and 2008
Languages offered by Elementary Schools 1997 and 2008
Elementary FL Program Types 13
Languages Offered by Secondary Schools `87 `97 `08
Languages offered in Secondary Schools 1997 and 2008 15
Types of FL Classes offered in US Secondary Schools 16
The Big Picture: Language by Rank in Population and by Age, Age by Language Spoken at Home Rank in Age of Population: All Ages (5-99) Elementary, Secondary and Post-Secondary Elementary Secondary Population Between Population Between 5-11 12-18 Post-Secondary Population Between 19-26 27 and Over Total Population 304,059,728 48,718,403 29,903,927 34,075,439 191,361,959 2nd Spanish 34,545,087 4,111,609 4,314,389 5,010,708 21,108,381 3rd Chinese 1,541,971 117,888 121,373 163,681 1,139,029 4th Vietnamese 1,240,962 116,919 105,677 133,252 885,114 5th French 1,287,166 75,919 121,328 137,520 952,399 6th Arabic 795,091 94,520 85,541 109,952 505,078 7th Korean 1,065,307 67,494 104,642 115,260 777,911 8th German 1,116,330 71,391 90,170 107,696 847,073 9th Tagalog 1,488,031 65,154 77,906 119,422 1,225,549 10th Russian 875,999 68,679 70,394 105,159 631,767 11th French Creole 655,673 56,553 75,834 103,514 419,772 12th Portuguese 668,193 44,926 54,774 86,947 481,546 13th Hindi 573,963 39,091 28,257 80,247 426,368 14th Polish 630,768 36,056 43,686 63,394 487,632 15th Urdu 351,330 47,041 39,182 41,504 223,603 16th Hmong 206,173 31,782 42,173 46,728 85,490 17th Cantonese 435,074 24,046 37,949 55,441 317,638 18th Italian 771,300 25,953 34,396 50,253 660,698 19th Mandarin 387,761 25,941 30,377 52,739 278,704 20th Japanese 438,395 32,637 29,371 43,870 332,517 21st Gujarati 338,841 27,398 27,368 41,475 242,600 Compiled by Casey O Hara, Center for Applied Linguistics. 2011.
Language by Rank in Population and by Age, Age by Language Spoken at Home Rank in Age of Population: Elementary, Secondary and Post-Secondary *CPS ~08 All Ages (5-99) Elementary Population Between 5-11 Secondary Population Between 12-18 Total K-12 enrollment ACTFL Survey `07-`08 Total Population 304,059,728 48,718,403 29,903,927 2nd Spanish 34,545,087 4,111,609 4,314,389 6,418,331 3rd Chinese 1,541,971 117,888 121,373 59,860 4th Vietnamese 1,240,962 116,919 105,677 1,580 5th French 1,287,166 75,919 121,328 1,254,243 6th Arabic 795,091 94,520 85,541 2369 7th Korean 1,065,307 67,494 104,642 2,833 8th German 1,116,330 71,391 90,170 395,019 9th Tagalog 1,488,031 65,154 77,906 2532 10th Russian 875,999 68,679 70,394 12,389 11th French Creole 655,673 56,553 75,834 12th Portuguese 668,193 44,926 54,774 1,368 13th Hindi 573,963 39,091 28,257 94 14th Polish 630,768 36,056 43,686 285 15th Urdu 351,330 47,041 39,182 16th Hmong 206,173 31,782 42,173 17th Cantonese 435,074 24,046 37,949 18th Italian 771,300 25,953 34,396 78,273 19th Mandarin 387,761 25,941 30,377 20th Japanese 438,395 32,637 29,371 72,845 21st Gujarati 338,841 27,398 27,368 ACTFL Source: http://www.actfl.org/files/reportsummary2011.pdf
Trends in Research Swartz (2010), with assistance from CAL, identified 214 studies, reports, and dissertations. Types of Research Identified by Swartz (2010) Language-specific focus (structure and skills) Programs The heritage speaker The community The family Assessment Policies Methodologies Identified Qualitative 48% Quantitative 12% Mixed Method 6% Not clearly specified 35% 19
Languages of Research Focus Arabic Armenian Bangladeshi Brazilian Portuguese Chinese Farsi/Persian German Greek Hebrew Hindi Hmong Japanese Karenni (Burma) Khmer Korean Latvian Lao Russian Spanish Thai Vietnamese [multiple languages] Swartz (2010)
New Directions in HL/CL Research Differentiated Instruction for HL and FL Learners (better informed by linguistic research) 1.5 Generation Dual Heritage Children Adopted Children s HLs and Their Parents Identity Studies Language Policies that Promote HLs Linguistic Landscape Analysis Connected to Instruction Social Network Analysis with Implications for Instruction The Role of Surrogate HLs as Ethnic or Cultural Unifiers among Linguistically Diverse Populations (e.g., Mandarin) 21
What else is needed? Principles for Advancing an Agenda for Action 1. Development of policies that ensure there is no linguistic discrimination. 2. Providing adequate programs for the teaching of English to all. 3. Ensuring respect for both multilingual capacity and individual languages. 4. Promoting the status and enrichment of heritage and community languages. National Policy Statement on Heritage Language Development (2002) 22
What is needed in policy? A multi-branched educational policy that strengthens and integrates a variety of language programs, That connects heritage programs with advanced training programs; builds on heritage, immersion and overseas-experience approaches to constantly replenish a cadre of multilingual citizens who are capable of professional work; this requires developing rich and satisfying language programs that lead to a multilingual population with knowledge of and respect for other languages and cultures. Spolsky, Bernard. (2001, 2011) 23
What is needed at the community level? Principles for a Language Policy for a Heritage Language Community The community recognizes the importance of multilingual competence in its members. It supports programs that assure that everyone can develop full control of English for access to educational, economic, social and cultural development. It supports efforts to assure that everyone can develop a high level of proficiency in the community language for the maintenance of tradition and culture. 24
What role can families and communities play? Families and communities can foster bilingualism as a resource by providing opportunities for developing oral and literacy skills in both languages, ensuring the use of the community language in public domains as well as private, assisting in the maintenance and cultivation of the community language, providing ways of passing traditional language and culture between the generations, working with community schools, persuading public schools to respect and support community language maintenance, encouraging and respecting efforts by other language groups to do the same. 25
CAL s Efforts to Promote HLs HL Alliance- CAL hosts the Heritage Language Alliance http://www.cal.org/heritage/involved/ Program Databases - CAL hosts databases of language immersion and two-way immersion programs Curriculum Development CAL works with programs to design curricula that are aligned with standards and appropriate for the students involved Learner Assessment CAL designs, provides teacher training on, and works with programs to implement assessments of speakers of many languages Program Design and Evaluation CAL works with programs to review their goals and scope and evaluate their effectiveness according to standards that are determined in collaboration Teacher Training CAL works with teachers and administrators to ensure that teachers working in language programs are fully equipped to work with the students in their classes. 26
References ACTFL (2011) Foreign Language Enrollments in K 12 Public Schools: Are Students Prepared for a Global Society? http://www.actfl.org/files/reportsummary2011.pdf Rhodes, N.C., & Pufahl, I. (2010_. Foreign Language Teaching in US Schools: Results of a National Survey. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Rumaut, R.G. (2009). A language graveyard? The evolution of language competencies, preferences and use among adult children of immigrants. In T.G. Wiley, J.S. Lee, R.W. Rumberger (Eds.). The Education of Language Minority Immigrants in the United States (pp. 35-71). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters, LTD. Spolsky, B. (October, 2002). National Policy Statement on Heritage Language Development: Toward an Agenda for Action. Heritage Languages in America: Building on Our National Resources. Conference Paper. Tysons Corner, VA. Spolsky, B, (2001). Heritage languages and national security: an ecological view. In Steven J. Baker (Ed.), Language Policy: Lessons from global models (pp. 103-114). Monterey, CA: Monterey Institute of International Studies. Spolsky, B. (2011). Does the United States Need a Language Policy? Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Swartz, A.M. (2010) Heritage Languages in America: A Decade of Research and Beyond. Boston, MA. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). Wiley, T.G. (2010). The United States. In J.A. Fishman & O. Garcia (Eds.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity (pp. 302-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 27