:.

111or
RELATED DISCIPLINES
~6 a
Languag e Research, (January 2011} devoted to the topic of "the generative study of
L3 ac q uisition."
One recent study (Thompson, 2009) investigated the interface of language aptitude
(see Chapter 14) and multilingualism. In her study of learners of English, there were
two groups: (1) monolingual speakers f Brazilian Portuguese and (2) NSs of Brazilian
Portuguese, with knowledge of anot er language. In other words, for the second group,
English was their L3. She found at previous language experience had an effect on
language aptitude, with her s ond group (multilinguals) outperforming bilinguals on
an aptitude test.
Other studies in multi e language acquisition could be interpreted as having an
effect on mental structu g and organization of the bilin al lexicon. For example, a
study by de Groot an oeks (1995) tested the relatio hip between proficiency and
lexico-semantic org ization in two sets of "unbala ed" trilinguals (Dutch-English-
French). The NL a ti the weak foreign language w e hypothesized to have a "word-
'1
association" lexi structure, whereas the NL an the stronger foreign language were
hypothesized t have a ·concept-mediation" le 1cal structure. The data suggest that
foreign-lang ge proficiency determines lexi -semantic organization in multilingual
speakers.
Lan age similarity and its effects have been discussed by a number of
researc ers in the area of multiple-Ian uage acquisition studies (Vildomec, 1963;
Stedj , 1977; Ringbom, 1987; Selinket Baumgartner-Cohen, 1995; Dewaele, 1998;
Will' ms & Hammarberg, 1998; De elis, 1999). Vildomec (1963) made the important
a?tJ still relevant observation that, n early L3 production, certain functors, such as
prepositions, articles, and conju tions, tend to come from the L2 and not the NL.
1 (p. 38)
This may occur even when the wo languages are not phonetic ly similar.
The use of function wor s from an L2 rather than th NL in third-language
/
• production has also been di cussed in Stedje (1977), Ring om (1987), and Williams
and Hammerberg (1998). tedje (1977), who examined 1nnish learners of German
as a third language wit Swedish as the second, fo d that function words were
predominantly transferr from the L2 rather than fr the NL. In a study examining
the data of essays wri en in English (L3) by Finnis students with Swedish as an L2,
Ringbom (1987) faun 187 instances of complete nguage switches from the Swedish
RELATED DISCIPLINES
®
Cenoz (2001) d iscussed a number of fact .(s that might influence cros -linguistic
influence in general (e.g., age, context o se, proficiency) and pro · ed empirical
evidence on the acquisition of Engli by Spanish/Basque bili als, with some
dominant In one language and " '. l117rs dominant in the other. S found that linguistic
distance Is one factor. Basque is nrelated to Spanish or En · , and there w as great
evidence of transfer from S nish to English than from qua to English. This as
the case for all learners, r ardless of language dam ce. Language distan Is not
the only factor. Age) another, with older lear rs showing more cro -linguistic
influence than you efer children. There are lari.9 age-related factors as ell, with more
transfer of conte words than function wor:9s. An Interesting finding · that when words
in English ar oreignized, only Spanisn.WOrds are at the base .§IP not Basque words.
15.4 HERITAGE LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
The heritage-language learner is a relatively recent area of study, having its origins in
the education literature.2 Heritage-language speakers are, broadly speaking, those who
have been exposed. to a language of personal connection (Fishman, 2001). Valdes
(2001 a) notes that, i
it is the historical and personal connection to the language that is salient and
not the actual proficiency of individual speakers. Armenian, for example, would
be considered a heritage language for American students of Armenian ancestry
even if the students were English-speaking monolinguals.
Furthermore, she characterizes a heritage-language learner (living in an English-
speaking environment) as someone 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" (2001a, p . 38).
For research into this type of second- or foreign-language acquisition, an important
issue is the exposure to, and use of, the language in childhood. Here, as can be easily
imagined, there are numerous problems, because exposure and use vary from

J L2 and only 8 from e Finnish L 1; in the instanc of transfer from Swedish, 67 percent
of the lexical item ere content words, and 3 percent were functions words. Williams
and Hammerber (1998, p. 296) examined i stances of what they called "non-adapted
language swit es" Q.e., transfer without edification) in a 15-year longitudinal study
of a learner o Swedish as a third lang ge, whose NL was English and first L2 was
:'
individual to individual. Unlike much of the literature on heritage-language learners,
which considers the language of the ancestral family, with or without exposure and
use, Polinsky (2008) defines heritage language as the language

German. An mportant finding was th , even when no direct similarity could be found,
some Ger an L2 lexical or structur features were present in the learner's Swedish
L3. The authors proposed that t German L2 was activated in parallel to the third
language. To account for this, 1lliarn and Hammerberg suggested a model of L3
acquisition whereby one non-target language becomes the "default supplier'' (p. 295).
They argue that there are a number of factors that determine which language assumes
that role in L3 acquisition: proficiency, recency, typology, and L2 status.
which was first for an individual w ith respect to the order of acquisition but
has not been completely acquired because of the switch to another dominant .
language. An individual may use the heritage language under certain conditions
and understand it, but his/her primary language is a different one.
(p. 149)
The recognition of heritage-language learners as a variable in L2 research is recent
and has even led to a restructuring of pedagogical programs to include separate

489
4 88

RELATED DISCIPLINES
learning environments for these individuals (see Kagan & Dillon, 2012,_for amview).
However often the concept of heritage-language speaker Is (unknowingly) ignored,
and the~ individuals are consequently included in studies. Sorace (1993b) is an
exception in that she explicitly controlled for heritage-language speakers in her study
on the acquisition of Italian by eliminating them from her database; "none had Italian
origins" (p. 35). · .. . .
Heritage language acquisition is a fonn of SLA and a form of b 11tngualtsm. Hentage-
language learners have knowledge of two languages (the home language and the
language of the environmenVschool), and they are usually dominant in the L2. There
is a wide range of linguistic knowledge of heritage speakers, including those who were
born in the L2 environment and those who came to ·the L2 environment during their
school years. Another consideration is the amount of inp·.i+. in the home, ranging from
only the heritage language spoken in the home (with perhaps parents only speaking
the heritage language) to those situations in which the heritage language is spoken
only sporadically.
Heritage learners often do not become bilingual speakers, because they do not
have the opportunity to speak the heritage language as much as they speak the
language of the non-home environment. In somt.: ca~es, they may not have heard or
spoken the heritage language since they were very young, because their families
switched to the language of the environment. Heritage-language learners form a
heterogeneous group, as their experiences of the language are very different. Some
learners may have been raised by parents who only spoke the heritage language.
However, as soon as they begin to attend school, their L2 generally becomes their
dominant language. Other learners may have only received very limited input of the
heritage language in the home, while the\' were young. Nonetheless, it is generally
accepted that the nature of language learning for heritage-language learners differs
from language learning involving non-heritage-language learners (Valdes, 1995, 2001 b;
Campbell & Rosenthal, 2000). Heritage speakers often possess a subtly different
knowledge base of the heritage language than ·L2 learners of that language with no
prior background. In addition, they often differ from monolingual speakers of their
heritage language. Sometimes, these differences may be subtle, and sometimes they
may be quite fundamental. Some recent studies have investigated the linguistic
differences between heritage language and non-heritage language learners (e.g.,
Nagasawa, 1995; Polinsky, 1995, 2000, 2008; Ke, 1998: Carreira, 2002; Montrul,
2002, 2004; Gass & Lewis, 2007).
There are some obvious experiential differences between heritage-language
learners and L2 learners. Think about the time of learning and the amount and
place of exposure. How would you characterize those differences? What
other differences can you think of?
490
"·.:.
•
Heritage speakers rarely have the same competence in their heritage language
as do NSs of that language. Some of this is owing to lack of exposure, which over
time leads to fossilization; some of this is owing to attrition, because the heritage
language often becomes the secondary language and may be subject to Influences
from the primary language.
When thinking about heritage-language learning, a question arises as to the ways
in which L2 learners and heritage-language learners are similar or different. /lJ.J et al.
(2002) found advantages for aspects of pronunc iation for heritage-language learners,
but no advantage for morphosyntax. In this latter domain, the two groups p atterned
alike. To support the advantage of heritage-language learners in the area of
pronunciation, Chang et al. (2008) found that heritage-language speakers of Mandarin
(particularly advanced learners) are able to keep the two sound systems apart (see
also Lukyanchenko & Gor, 2011 , for a similar, although not identical, finding, noting
that, with regard to speech perception, patterning as NSs is often, but not always,
the case). Even though heritage-speaker phonology is more similar to that of NSs of
their heritage language than is the case of true L2 learners, it is also the case that
there are nonnative elements of pronunciation (see Yenl-Komshian et al., 2000).
Morphosyntax is an area that is not always well controlled by heritage-language
learners, particularly when compared with NSs of their heritage language (see Albirini
et al., 2011 , for Arabic; O'Grady et al., 2011 , for Korean; and Polinsky, 201 1, for
Russian, all of which present recent examplf'lS of incomplete grammars). Similar
difficulties for syntax are also found among heritage speakers (see Montrul, 201 O, for
a review) when compared with NSs of the heritage language.
The modality of expression differentiates L2 learners and heritage-language
learners. Typically, oral skills are better among heritage-language learners, whereas
written skills are better among L2 classroom learners. This is not surprising in that
heritage-language learning generally takes place in a home environment and at a young
age, prior to access to written materials. On the other hand, L2 learners learn in
a formal classroom environment where writing and formal grammar control are
emphasized.
. '• ...
TIME TO DO .. .
Listen to the podcast about heritage-language learners on the website (see
Link #4 in the Links section at the end of the chapter) .
.,;l,_ What are the differences betwe~n heritage-language learners and foreign-
·+
...
language learners? Why does the speaker argue that the two groups of
learners should be taught separately?
.. '! ;.
-:·,• '
'it,-~·
~,,:4 ·,
~/i'i' ~:·
. .·,' 491
f-~ -